jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Pielorinho]

But then, I rule that if you have a longsword (5 hit points), make it +1 (+10 hit points, total 15), and it gets hit with a Sunder attempt for 10 damage (5 hit points remaining) and then taken into an Antimagic Field, it snaps. The magic goes away, the enhancement bonus goes away, the consequent extra hit points go away, and you're left with a sword that has five hit points and ten damage, for a current total of -5.

Actually, according to the SRD:

If you fail the sunder attempt, you don't do any damage

Hah! Hah, I say!

I hope.
Daniel

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hah! Hah, I say!

I hope.

Keep hopin' ....

Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3: Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.

If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage.

"Fail the Sunder attempt" = "Lose the Opposed Roll."

 

[Pielorinho]

Curses! But I'm not done yet.

I've always read that final line as saying that, "If you attempt to sunder the weapon and fail, you deal no damage." That is, if you don't deal enough damage to sunder the weapon, then you don't deal any damage.

Looks like you're reading it to say, "If you don't succeed on the opposed roll, then you deal no damage."

I like my way better. It means I don't have to track hit points for weapons. And it also makes sense to me--not as a modelling of the universe, but as a straightforward reading of the passage, in which a sunder attempt=an attempt to sunder.

Daniel

 

[Rystil Arden]

It is set up as an If-Then-Else. This is just an example of your interesting subjective method of determining what the rules are

 

[Fieari]

Your way means you can't keep hacking at a weapon to sunder it in more than 1 round. Say there's a guy over there with a really nifty bow... like a +5 Longbow of EVIL or something. I want to take him in for questioning, and I want his weapon destroyed. But it has sufficient hitpoints that I can't quite take it out in one round. So I hack into it once... twice... three times and finally I've dealt enough cumulative damage to break the bow, leaving the dude relatively helpless and able to be captured easily.

Under your ruling, as far as I'm concerned, his bow is indestructable and to even try is pointless.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I've always read that final line as saying that, "If you attempt to sunder the weapon and fail, you deal no damage."

I agree.

That is, if you don't deal enough damage to sunder the weapon, then you don't deal any damage.

I don't agree.

Looks like you're reading it to say, "If you don't succeed on the opposed roll, then you deal no damage."

I agree again!

It means I don't have to track hit points for weapons.

I agree with that, but ...

And it also makes sense to me--not as a modelling of the universe, but as a straightforward reading of the passage, in which a sunder attempt=an attempt to sunder.

However, ruling in your fashion means that it's only possible to one-shot the enemy's weapon. If you try and fail to do enough damage to break it in one hit, you've wasted that attack.

Moreover, it means that no matter how hard I try, it may be impossible to break a certain weapon.

It also shifts the "Sunder Balance of Power" even further in the direction of the two-handed-Power-Attacking type, because he's the only one that has a reasonable chance of one-shotting a weapon. Anyone else won't be able to do enough damage to both overcome the hardness of the weapon *and* do enough damage to the weapon to break it in one hit.

 

[Pielorinho]

Your way means you can't keep hacking at a weapon to sunder it in more than 1 round.

Indeed it does. That's not a bug, that's a feature!

It's not set up as an If...then statement. If it were, the full thing would read:

Step 3: Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.

If you do not beat the defender, you don’t deal any damage.

Note the bolded, changed wording.

A sunder attempt=an attempt to sunder. This is straightforward and common sense to me; a sunder attempt != the small part of the sunder attempt involving an opposed roll against the defender.

Daniel

 

[Fieari]

We're into "D&D definitions of a word may not be the english definition of a word", just like the old 1-handed 2-handed weapon debate.

In D&D, to Sunder means "To strike a weapon or shield". Nothing about actually breaking it.

SUNDER
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)

That's the definition of sunder.

If you fail to sunder, you do no damage.

If you fail to strike the weapon, you do no damage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A sunder attempt=an attempt to sunder.

Correct.

What happens when you attempt to sunder?

1. You provoke an AoO.
2. You make opposed attack rolls.
3. You determine the consequences.

What are the potential consequences?

"If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield."

I beat the defender, I roll damage, and deal it to the weapon or shield. The shield is, at this point, damaged (assuming I was able to overcome the Hardness).

"If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage."

Ah. So, after I damage the shield, if it's not enough to break it, I retroactively remove the damage I've already done to it (according to you)?

I don't think that's a possible reading.

Moreover, if that's the way it actually worked, why do weapon actually have hit points, and not just lots of hardness?

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is just an example of your interesting subjective method of determining what the rules are

Do let's avoid the snarkiness, Rystil.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)