Who was right

[Moff_Tarkin]

People have been mentioning sunder rules, I want to make sure I got this right.

The guy had a non-magical (maybe it was +1) adamantine mace. I believe adamantine is supposed to ignore damage reduction which is why he could sunder my +5 shield. Oh, the shield was mithril by the way. I honestly did not think that was important as I was told that adamantine ignores all hardness.

As for it having 70 hit points. Well I don’t know how much damage the guy did. The DM just rolled and said the shield was gone. I don’t doubt he could have done the damage however since this DM has major munchkin bad guys.

But what’s this about needing a magic weapon with the same level of enchantment to break my shield. Is that a rule and if so where is it. I am pretty sure the mace identified as a +1 weapon. It was certainly not +5.

Also, I was told by the group while we were looking things up that the level of enchantment on my shield in no way effected how easy it was to break.

I am going to look up the rules now but in case I cant find anything, can people point me to the part where it says how magical enchantment makes my sheild tougher. Plus any rules that could prove that my sheild wasend sundered after all?

 

[Crothian]

But what’s this about needing a magic weapon with the same level of enchantment to break my shield. Is that a rule and if so where is it.

Yes, it is a rule. You can find it in the 3.0 book, but it got dropped in 3.5

 

[blargney the second]

Plus any rules that could prove that my sheild wasend sundered after all?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

How is what I asked opening a can or worms??? Its a simple question and I already found the answer.

The DMG says that my sheild has a bonus 2 hardness and 10 hp for each +1 enchantemt. If I did the math right my +5 mithral tower sheild has a 25 hardness and 80 hit points. All this after my group said that being magical does not make an item tougher in any way.

One more important question. The DMG claoms adamantine weapons ignore hardness less than 20. So does my sheild get its full hardness of 25 or is its hardness reduced to 5.

In the end though I think the DM will interpret that rule in the way that benefits him. This is the guy who denied my pegasus on the grounds that the unusual mount section of the DMG is part of the Cohort section and as such requires leadership, even though they are under two different headings. Of course thats not a rules question, but a question of remedial reading skills.

 

[roguerouge]

And if the group wanted to get rid of you for the way this is all going down (the demands, the selfishness, the 'taking it to a message board'), then I have already set my own precedence in voting to remove such individuals.

First of all, did you even read the moderator's post that talking about table-level issues is one of the main purposes of this site? This forum must seem VERY strange if you don't get that.

Second, I really can't see why asking for advice or blowing off steam on a message board is so threatening to you or the other guy who posted in this manner, especially when they don't use identifying markers.

Third, I really can't see making threats to boot someone from a game over treasure distribution.

 

[roguerouge]

As for it having 70 hit points. Well I don’t know how much damage the guy did. The DM just rolled and said the shield was gone. I don’t doubt he could have done the damage however since this DM has major munchkin bad guys.

I smell confirmation of DM fiat here.

My advice: let it go. You're not going to win a vengeance war here. Take what you can get from this adventure and then find another gaming group. Or you could talk with him in a non-combative way about this issue.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I dont mind a confrontation with the DM. There are guys in this group I have known for over 14 years and we have had more arguments in that time than any human can reckon. We alwasy get things resolved and underway... eventually

 

[DMReckless]

Using your own logic, none of you were right.

By their actions, the villians in question owed all of the money to the town. Every last copper should have been used to ressurect every person in town killed by the villains. If any money was left over, you and the Monk should have been taken care of next. Then whatever was left over should have been split by the party.

The villains "sundered" the lives and property of the villagers, and thus, the money the villains had MUST belong to the villagers first.

I'd really like to see you respond here, because I don't think you can make a case against your own logic. Not without being all those things you say you're not.

What, no response to this?
But several to statements about sundering rules.
Hmmmnnn, looks to me like the title of this thread should have been "Agree with me." or maybe "Help! My DM and Party are breaking my character!" Or some other title with a lot of "I"s or "Me"s.

Show you're a true Paladin and you really believe what you've said here by DEMANDING all the gold is given to ressurect the village and repair their broken homes. And then you can go back to rules lawyering about whether or not your shield was broken.

 

[amethal]

Sounds like even if you do get that 25,000 gp, the last thing you should do is buy a new shield.

Unless you can sort things out with the DM, you're just asking for it to be sundered again.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Honestly DMReckless, I gave all but gave up on this argument and stopped trying to read every post. I didn’t read yours and as such didn’t respond. But I guess I will now.

You make a good argument about the loot of the bad guys belonging to the people of the town who had their “lives” sundered. But honestly, most parties never go that far. Its always assumed the bad guys loot belongs to them. I know its sounds greedy, which most people are accusing me of being, but that’s how most parties do it. They split the bad guys loot amongst themselves and “maybe” some of the more noble ones will make a small donation to the town.

So honestly the townspeople didn’t factor into it. Sadly they rarely do. It was assumed, as is usually always the case, that the loot belonged to the members of the party. And the argument was about rather one member of the party disserved a bigger share of the loot to make up for his great sacrifice in obtaining it.