jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Pielorinho]

I understand your attempt to avoid bookkeepping, and that is a worthy goal in a game that seems to foster it. Your interpretation is a fine houserule to achieve this goal, but RAW supports the 'range of effect' and its attendent bookkeepping.

Obviously, I disagree: in this case, I think the RAW, both in spirit and in literal reading, support the all-or-nothing sundering that I describe. A failed sunder attempt deals no damage to the weapon: if you fail to break it, you don't hurt it at all.

Daniel

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Obviously, I disagree: in this case, I think the RAW, both in spirit and in literal reading, support the all-or-nothing sundering that I describe. A failed sunder attempt deals no damage to the weapon: if you fail to break it, you don't hurt it at all.

In other words, you would have it that the RAW say that you do damage to a weapon and then, after you have damaged it, not do damage to it?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Oh and as for the Sunder-Disarm dichotomy: Sunder is striking a weapon, whereas Disarm is simply knocking it away. There's a big difference there. You don't approach those actions in the same fashion.

 

[3d6]

I bet the 3.5 revision team never thought that changing the name of the manuver from "strike a weapon" to "sunder" would provoke a rules debate.

 

[tigycho]

I'd agree with that.

If you petrify someone who's under the effect of Enlarge Person, I'd expect the enormous statue to shrink back to normal size some minutes later.

That might make sense, but I'd almost prefer, for narrative reasons, to have a Ginormous statue of the person, which, upon being de-stoned, shrinks to normal size,

OR

The statue itself is enormous, and shrinks when Enlarge person ends, cracking and shattering.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I bet the 3.5 revision team never thought that changing the name of the manouevre from "strike a weapon" to "sunder" would provoke a rules debate.

Best Bugs Bunny voice: "They don't know us very well, do they?"

 

[Hypersmurf]

Moreover, if that's the way it actually worked, why do weapon actually have hit points, and not just lots of hardness?

Unfortunately, I have an answer for that

Adamantine. (And, according to one answer in the FAQ, but not according to another answer in the FAQ, sonic, acid, and potentially force damage.)

I still absolutely disagree with Pielorinho's interpretation, but it does answer why hardness and hit points are separate.

-Hyp.

 

[Arnwyn]

However, it seems that for the moment over 75% of people use Hypersmurf, Seeten, and my method, and most of the others don't use yours. Not that popularity is any sort of value judgment, of course, but it does show what I expected: that your line of thinking is unusual (I would have considered it unique and/or unthinkable until I saw some people here using it).

I'd watch your credibility here, what with statements like the above...

 

[Seeten]

In Rystil's defense, he did run a poll in this very forum, to get those statistics.

So, while they arent scientific, they are real statistics, for what they are worth.(Admittedly, not much but anecdotal information)

 

[moritheil]

1. To take things to their logical extension, I'll have to ask you what you mean by "destroying it." After all, a "broken" weapon (blade snapped) can be quite different from a "destroyed weapon" (blade gone and handle is a charred piece of junk). Would you rule that all weapons sundered are "destroyed?" If so, "destroyed" is not "broken," and no sundered weapon can ever be repaired according to the SRD text, which covers "broken" weapons.

2. (c). Clarity is absolutely essential, as this thread shows.

3. You do in fact strike it. That has been established. What is unclear is what happens once we have established that you have in fact struck.

Two questions.

1) Hypersmurf has proposed that the "strike a weapon" mentioned in the Rusting Grasp spell isn't the same as the "strike a weapon" that y'all assert is the definition of "sunder" because Rusting Grasp doesn't entail striking that weapon with a blunt weapon of your own. I'm not sure I accept that, but I'll stipulate it for now.

Because my fighter has gotten his paws on a Gauntlet of Rusting Grasp. Gauntlets are blunt weapons.

Other folks have asserted it doesn't apply because it's a different mechanic. Frankly, that's my point: a Sunder isn't just striking a weapon, it's striking a weapon and
destroying it.

2) Next week, the player of Krusk might say to me, "Grrrrr! I strike at the base of the villain's sword with my greataxe, trying to knock it out of his hand!" Do I:
a) Turn to the rules for disarming, since he's clearly trying to disarm the opponent;
b) Turn to the rules for sundering, since he just told me he was striking at an opponent's weapon with his slashing weapon, and that's the definition of sundering; or
c) Turn to the disarming rules, but warn him not to use so much flavor text next time?

It seems common sense to me that I do (a): the difference between a sunder and a disarm is the intent of the attacker (and their technique). Both attacks involve striking an opponent's weapon (a disarm sometimes involves other techniques, but usually it's a strike). A disarm gets the weapon out of the hand; a sunder breaks the weapon.

And a third bonus question:
3) Sunder is (according to others) defined as "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield thatyour opponent is holding." Not that you can TRY to do this: you CAN do this. Does this mean that an unarmed attack with fists (bludgeoning weapons) can automatically strike an opponent's weapon or shield, and that the only question is whether any damage is done? If so, every spellcaster ought to give up the "unarmed touch attack" mechanic in favor of just trying to sunder an opponent's weapon or shield, since a successful touch against a shield transmits a touch spell, and you CAN use a melee attack to...strike a ...shield that your opponent is holding."

Obviously I think that's absurd, but I think it's what results from a programmatic reading of the rules. I think a common-sense reading, in which this is not a definition but rather a topic sentence, makes the whole passage make sense, doesn't raise bugaboos in conjunction with other rules, and doesn't require a set of new mechanics to deal with weapon damage.

Daniel