Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bauglir" data-source="post: 844215" data-attributes="member: 6982">I despise sunder, and house rule it right out of any game I run.Sunder is way too easy, and does way too much long term damage.  Why would anyone choose to sunder, rather than disarm a valuable magic weapon (which you can later keep, or sell)?  It makes no sense.As levels climb it only gets worse.  Characters get effectively harder to kill, their equipment does not, and item destruction is quite literally 'a fate worse than death' at higher levels.Sunder, if used regularly removes any market or trade in magical equipment.  Why would anyone buy a +3 Longsword that will likely not last a week?  It makes much more economical sense to buy a bag of nonmagical swords, and arrange for a GMW every day.  (Perhaps give the party wizard a Pearl of Power 3).Sunder breeds an us vs them atmosphere between the players and the dm.  Sundering is so easy to do that most players will see a sundering foe as a decision by the dm to arbitrarily destroy their equipment, which they will resent (The DM controls the world around them, but the player should be in charge of their own character, and his equipment).  it will quickly throw a party out of balance.  A fighter can suddenly find himself next to useless if a weapon he was relying upon, and he will (rightly imo) blame the dm for making the game a lot less fun for him.  You could argue that he should carry a backup, but that costs money, and unless PC wealth is artificially high, the fighter will always be behind the curve in equipment with all those backups.It's a lose-lose situation.  No thanks.</blockquote>

Verification