does anyone think sunder is too easy?

[Bauglir]

I don't like it at all.

It's a fact that magic items make up a major component of a high level character's CR (not a popular fact, but a fact nonetheless).

An enemy using sunder can therefore inflict a disproportionate amount of long term damage to a party, as compared to an enemy NOT using sunder

A PC using sunder will be destroying valuable magical equipment, again hindering the party's long-term survivability through reduction of resources (ie loot )

D&D is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Saving up for several sessions to finally get that new magic weapon commissioned, only to have it destroyed shortly afterwards is not fun.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't like it at all.

Next you'll be complaining about Ethereal Filchers!

-Hyp.

 

[Bauglir]

An ethereal filcher stole my lunch yesterday!

My hate of ethereal filchers know no limit..

 

[hong]

Yes, I think sundering is too easy. I also think disarming, grappling, tripping, etc are all too easy, as evidenced by how they often get trotted out as ways to overcome strong opponents.

The problem is that these attack forms all bypass the hit point mechanic, which is one of D&D's main methods of representing combat skill. Having trouble beating down the barbarian with a greataxe? Disarm him; you've effectively nerfed the encounter, without having to worry about reducing the barb's 100 hit points. Having trouble stopping the wiz from casting spells? Grapple him; you've removed most of the threat, without having to worry about hitting him.

What I'd really like to see is some way of incorporating hit points into these attack forms. The challenge then is how to make these attack forms distinct from just thumping the other guy.

 

[Darklone]

Well. Difficult to include into D&D mechanics.

 

[dcollins]

Yes, I think sundering is too easy. I also think disarming, grappling, tripping, etc are all too easy, as evidenced by how they often get trotted out as ways to overcome strong opponents.

Hong, I appreciate your thinking in depth about these issues, but I believe you've taken this theory beyond what is workable. Of course, you've also suggested that all hindering spells (holds, charms, disintegration, etc.) also be converted to only subtract a number of hit points.

Hit points have always been an "abstraction of all physical injury". They're not meant to be an "abstraction of all unfortunate circumstances". I could imagine an AD&D style game where the extra attack forms are simply disallowed (i.e., grapple, disarm, trip would be variant rules). However, it really can't make any sense to "trip" or "disarm" someone without them actually winding up without footing or weapon (etc.) in-game.

 

[hong]

Hong, I appreciate your thinking in depth about these issues, but I believe you've taken this theory beyond what is workable. Of course, you've also suggested that all hindering spells (holds, charms, disintegration, etc.) also be converted to only subtract a number of hit points.

Actually, it was Andy Collins who suggested that disintegrate, FoD, et al could do (massive amounts of) hit point damage on a failed save. Which seems reasonable enough to me.

Hit points have always been an "abstraction of all physical injury". They're not meant to be an "abstraction of all unfortunate circumstances". I could imagine an AD&D style game where the extra attack forms are simply disallowed (i.e., grapple, disarm, trip would be variant rules). However, it really can't make any sense to "trip" or "disarm" someone without them actually winding up without footing or weapon (etc.) in-game.

Well, I never said it would be something that could just be whacked into the next bugfix. However, _some_ way of incorporating hit points into these special attacks would still be good, IMO, even if it means having to reconceptualise hit points.

 

[green slime]

I agree with dcollins on this issue.

Also, there are ways in game to avoid these "easy" attack forms:

That of Disarming: Locked Gauntlet

Sunder: Quick Draw, and a full round of attacks.

Grapple: Still Spells, Dimension Door

Trip: --- Well there are feats (Instant Stand, Prone Fighting from OA?) and abilities available, just not in the Core rules. And you can fight from a prone position...or crawl away and stand up. Or use a move to stand up, you are still holding your weapon, after all.

In my game, trip and grapple have been pretty much dropped as tactics, as in general, it just seems more efficient to smack the opponent around.

Besides, the guy that spent all those feats to get Sunder, is going to feel slightly less optimized against creatures with natural weaponry.

I don't see it as a huge problem, yet. But my game isn't at the levels that hong's is. I only have one player who insits on trying out all the strange manuevers, and he generally fails at them.

 

[RigaMortus]

Well, I never said it would be something that could just be whacked into the next bugfix. However, _some_ way of incorporating hit points into these special attacks would still be good, IMO, even if it means having to reconceptualise hit points.

This is going into House Rule territory here, but one idea might be... initiate and resolve the disarm attempt as normal... if you succeed, roll damage dice for the weapon you are using for the disarm, then if the damage you do witht hat weapon equals X the disarm is truly successful. X could be a percentage of the opponent's hit points or a set number. You don't actually deal that damage, it is just a secondary requirement to succeed on that disarm check which incorporates your opponent's hit points.

Well, just a thought.

 

[Vaxalon]

I think sundering is only dangerous to people who are stuck in a 2e mindset.

"This is my weapon. This is my BEST weapon. This is My Only Good Weapon. If I don't have This Weapon, I am NoThInG."

Here's the way it works:

One of them gets an alchemical silver longsword. It's pretty nice, does +2 damage against lycanthropes. The campaign is focusing on lycanthropes at the moment, so she likes it a lot.

She got some cash, and took it to have it enchanted to +1.

Later on, they found a +1 shortsword. "Feh. I already have one of those... in fact, I have a better one." She sells it, and uses that cash, and some other, to enchant the longsword to +2.

Then what happens when the +2 alchemical silver longsword gets sundered/disjoined or otherwise lost?

"Hey! That's not fair! That was my only good weapon, and now I'm worthless! I can't do anything because YOU destroyed it! It's all YOUR fault, you ruthless, evil, conniving DM!"

Whose fault is it REALLY?