pawsplay
Hero
So the real question is, do you work for the CIA, or the US Army? <rimshot>
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Break my game: Indestructible sword at level 1
- Thread starter jonesy
- Start date
So the real question is, do you work for the CIA, or the US Army? <rimshot>
Haltherrion
First Post
I don't see any reference to sunder in the original post...
There wasn't. The OP made no reference to system of any kind, beyond mentioning "1st level" and "Al-Quadim."
I used the word first, and by doing so implied that I was talking in 3.X terms, a level-based system that is one of the more popular ones around here.
Were I thinking in 1Ed or 2Ed terms, I might have gotten to the pokestick stuff first...or mentioned how cool it would be to have in Athas, messing with all that gear made of Chitin, Bone or other breakable stuff (absent in most other settings).
Were I thinking in terms of RIFTS, I might have said something about "jamming gears of MDC machines."
But because of the "Al-Quadim" reference, I knew it was probably a D&D campaign using 1Ed, 2Ed or 3.X rules. So I picked the most recent one.
Last edited:
Haltherrion
First Post
And as I said, your reply assumed the system in use allowed for sunder AND the game style in question made sundering common enough to worry about it. My group played 3.5E for quite a while without doing much in the way of sundering so even in our 3.5E days, the undestructable sword wouldn't have really caught our interest in and of itself.
Of course it follows that if you do play with sunder rules and they get used a lot, then such a sword might be much more interesting.
I've never used the sunder rules...but if I had an indestructible blade, I'd make a nice, beefy sundering PC...as per my answer.
As for my assumptions: the mere fact that the blade is indestructible and that this is an impressive reward implies that this characteristic sets it apart from most other things in the campaign world- IOW, probably everything else in the world can be broken.
So, if you have a weapon that cannot be broken, having a PC who takes advantage of that fact by breaking other things with it is...forseeable.
As for my assumptions: the mere fact that the blade is indestructible and that this is an impressive reward implies that this characteristic sets it apart from most other things in the campaign world- IOW, probably everything else in the world can be broken.
So, if you have a weapon that cannot be broken, having a PC who takes advantage of that fact by breaking other things with it is...forseeable.
Last edited:
Haltherrion
First Post
I don't have my 3.5E books anymore but I don't recall the sunder-er taking damage to his weapon so per that system I'm not sure what difference it makes if you have that weapon or not if you decide to sunder. I supposed it would help with the inevitable ref counter reaction of sundering the PC but then why not carry a backup weapon or two?
But perhaps I mis-remember this part of the rules. As I said, we didn't sunder much.
It was one of those things that seemed unbalancing in the short term and distorting in the long term: build a PC around sundering and the ref will naturally create counter measures: unsunderable weapons or have the foes all have multiple weapons at the ready or sunder the party's weapons more than they desire or simply use more foes with natural weapons. As you say, foreseeable. So why invest in sunder.
The fact that it can't be broken doesn't imply that it can itself break everything else or that it becomes the be-all-and-end-all of the campaign. For instance, apply said elephant (per another poster on this thread) to the sword used as a lever on a vault and the elephant is more likely to have the hilt of the sword painfully embedded in its body than the vault opened. Or the fulcruum point give out.
But if your point is more along the lines of this sort of thing has unintended consequences, than I'd certainly agree.
Even so, as I ref were I to put in an indestructible sword and then find it a nuisance I'd let it break at some point. It's not like it came with a warranty backed by the creator of the universe. Someone told the PCs it was undestructable, for a long time it seemed pretty indestructible, but oops, they were wrong. How did the PCs know it was really indestructible? It's hearsay backed up by a certain amount of evidence but maybe it was just mostly indestructible.
Both the game world and the real world are full of exagerrated labels
Last edited:
They don't- but like I said, an attempt to sunder a weapon may in fact draw a counter sunder by the NPC, which will perforce fail. Repeat the sunder attempt. Etc.
Yes, it would help with the DM reprisal.
And as for carrying a backup weapon, most of my PCs do. But drawing them takes time...
No, it doesn't...but that doesn't mean one can't try.
There is an expression, "To a hammer, the whole world is a nail." Well, to the guy with PowAtt and Imp. Sunder- someone who has trained to break things- an unbreakable sword looks like a godsend for the express purpose of breaking stuff...and a way to be safe from others familiar with the same techniques.
How indestructible something is depends upon the DM's worldview and planned plotline.
Haltherrion
First Post
Yes, well as I said, it takes sunder rules and frequent use of them to matter. Seems like we have agreed, yes?
Last edited:
Haltherrion
First Post
Yes, but the meaning of that expression is the person with the hammer is being a fool for not using the right tool for the situation
In game terms, not everything is suceptible to sundering. There are plenty of creatures that don't use weapons or who might have very difficult to sunder weapons (or whose weapon you might want to take as a spoil). More over, as the levels progress, is the +0 unbreakable sword really going to look that good compared to the other PC's +5 vorpal sword?
As a ref, it's easy enough to shift fights to creatures that don't use weapons. Now mister uber-sunder-er is gimped by not have generally useful feats. I wouldn't entirely shift to weaponless critters but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't consider it in my line-ups if sundering became a nuisance.
He may ineed be a fool...he will also probably be aware of what is sunderable and what is not. (Even if he isn't, the rules wouldn't let him target a non-sunderable item with a sundering attack.)
As for choosing between unbreakable and vorpal, that depends upon the player. And yes, I have had players who passed on gear superior to her masterwork stuff because of in-character decisions.
As for choosing between unbreakable and vorpal, that depends upon the player. And yes, I have had players who passed on gear superior to her masterwork stuff because of in-character decisions.
Similar Threads
