How long to Sunder the Evil Sword?

[diaglo]

My question is...

...Why destroy it? An unholy sword is at least a +3 (at minimum, it's +1 Unholy), which can be sold for 9,000 gp. Just because someone's good doesn't mean that they necessarily have to destroy everything capable of killing good- otherwise, they'd never sell a single weapon (as any weapon can be used to kill a good character). So why on earth is the party intent on destroying it? Why not just sell it?

my character would agree... but i was the only Neutral in the party..

the rest included the LG dwarven justiciar... he sundered the thing.

yup.. fighter/blackguard/champion of evil drow deity with demon armor and unholy greatsword really was a nasty foe..

almost killed my PC in the first round of combat.

 

[Numenorean]

Has anyone on here ever tried to cut a sword in half by hitting it with another sword?

LOL. Sundering as a concept in the game is pretty ... odd lets say. Now I can understand sundering a hafted weapon such as a spear with a sword, or a heavy flanged mace damaging a sword ... but sword on sword?

Also instead of a character sitting around trying to cleave the mighty evil sword in two with his lesser weapon, wouldn't it be a whole lot cooler to take the evil blade to a High Temple of some goodly deity and they call in the High Priests to come together and lay some sort of curse on it, or exercise the evil power from it, or they give you a quest to drop it down in to a deep lake of fire deep in the mountains, or have make contact with an ancient silver dragon so he can destroy it, etc etc etc.

Thats one downside I see to some of the 3.5e rules ... some people take them so seriously that they end up "ruling" the fantasy aspect right out of their fantasy game. LOL.

For example in our campaign we just slew an evil fighter who carried a longsword +1 of wounding that has an evil tinge or feel to it. We were headed in to the mountains to a steadfast hold of a goodly deity. We were just going to have the clerics seal it in one of their deep vaults ... maybe lay a curse or something on it too? Who knows? But IMO, and this is just my opinion, stuff like that is a lot cooler than doing the rules-number crunching and seeing if some lesser blade can cleave the sword in two (which IMO is sort of silly too ... I'm with the old 3e rules on that one).

of course thats my opinion and your mileage may vary.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Who is an unholy weapon best at killing?

Why, good people, of course.

But are all good people good? I mean, do all good-aligned characters deserve to live? Just because someone's evil, does that mean they're wrong? Unless the players are all obsessed with ridding the world entirely of everything evil (which is a completely unrealistic and utterly unattainable goal), they should have no problem with letting an Unholy weapon exist. After all, there are good characters who deserve to die, and evil characters who deserve to bring about that death. Evil is always going to exist, and very few evil beings are going to kill good being "just because they're good". So if evil's always gonna be around, and evil's always gonna be killing good (and the other way around), and only half of that killing is going to be directly because of the fact that one side is good and the other is evil, there shouldn't be any problem with selling an Unholy sword. Unless you expect the buyer to use it on you, that is.

 

[diaglo]

Why, good people, of course.

But are all good people good? I mean, do all good-aligned characters deserve to live? Just because someone's evil, does that mean they're wrong? Unless the players are all obsessed with ridding the world entirely of everything evil (which is a completely unrealistic and utterly unattainable goal), they should have no problem with letting an Unholy weapon exist. After all, there are good characters who deserve to die, and evil characters who deserve to bring about that death. Evil is always going to exist, and very few evil beings are going to kill good being "just because they're good". So if evil's always gonna be around, and evil's always gonna be killing good (and the other way around), and only half of that killing is going to be directly because of the fact that one side is good and the other is evil, there shouldn't be any problem with selling an Unholy sword. Unless you expect the buyer to use it on you, that is.

you are approaching it from a Neutral point of reference.

for good. all good deserves to live.
destroying an evil weapon is a good thing to do.

 

[Thanee]

Has anyone on here ever tried to cut a sword in half by hitting it with another sword?

LOL.

You say it.

Okay, with an adamantine weapon, I can see how that would work... but really.

Oh well, at least you can't sunder armor, that would be even more ridiculous.

Bye
Thanee

 

[diaglo]

You say it.

Okay, with an adamantine weapon, I can see how that would work... but really.

Oh well, at least you can't sunder armor, that would be even more ridiculous.

Bye
Thanee

hardness in general is a messed up mechanic.

i mean... how do avg str commoners without power attack mine?

a pick doesn't do enough damage on solid rock. and don't even talk about a crowbar or hammer...

 

[Thanee]

I can see a new feat for one of the upcoming WotC products.

Miner [General]

Prerequisite: Str 13, Power Attack.
Benefit: You can use your Profession (miner) skill to mine.
Normal: Your Profession (miner) skill does not really allow you to mine.
Special: You rock. Literally!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

hardness in general is a messed up mechanic.

i mean... how do avg str commoners without power attack mine?

a pick doesn't do enough damage on solid rock. and don't even talk about a crowbar or hammer...

Well, actually, the rules support this with the following section:

Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.

I think it's perfectly reasonable and within the rules to say that a pick ignores the hardness of a rock.

 

[diaglo]

I think it's perfectly reasonable and within the rules to say that a pick ignores the hardness of a rock.

i would agree. but they don't have one of those little astericks or subscripts by the pick.

so as a house rule it works.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

i would agree. but they don't have one of those little astericks or subscripts by the pick.

so as a house rule it works.

Wah! Wah!

I call munchkin powergaming wrong sort of fun on you.

I'd never play in a game with rules like that... I'd rather commit seppuku, with a bohemian ear spoon.

You need to wait for the Complete Miner.