jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Seeten]

A Grasp is a touch, a sunder is a strike. This is the same dichotomy as a melee attack and a melee touch attack, and its the same difference why its so much easier to hit with shocking grasp than it is to hit with your sword, in one case, you are simply and only trying to make contact, and in in the other, you are attempting to make contact while swinging hard enough to chop the head from the shoulders.

Honestly, I think my first example, which you ignored, was very succinct.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Look. Be honest and upfront.

Do you actually want answers, or do you want to make snippy comments?

By the rules, I said. And you're telling me by the rules it's just as difficult to repair a 1 HP scratch to a sword as to repair a sword shattered into pieces? Hmm. My common sense is tingling.

I quoted the damn rules. The DC to repair Masterwork weapons is 20. The cost to repair an item from "Completely Broken" to "Completely Fine" is 1/5th of the items base price.

However, most DMs I've been involved with rule that the price is applicable only to the "CB to CF" repair. Therefore, the less you actually need to repair, the less the raw materials should cost.

The rules do not specifically state this, however - as I mentioned before.

1. No - magical items which are damaged (but not destroyed) can be rebuilt using the appropriate Craft skill.

I'm not interested in costs for "completely destroyed" weapons; I understand how those work. I'm not sure how you arrive at point #1, though.

I arrived at it by the rules I quoted to you, which you saw fit to just ignore. I'll quote them again.

REPAIRING MAGIC ITEMS
Some magic items take damage over the course of an adventure. It costs no more to repair a magic item with the Craft skill than it does to repair its nonmagical counterpart. The make whole spell also repairs a damaged—but not completely broken—magic item.

This +5 longsword was damaged over the course of the last adventure. Gee, how do I repair it? Hmm ... It looks like it costs no more to repair this magic item with the Craft skill (that's Craft (Weaponsmithing) from above, BTW) than it would be for a completely mundane masterwork longsword.

In other words, Craft (WS) DC 20, 62gp in materials (possibly prorated if your DM allows it).

Or, my friend the Cleric can just cast the make whole spell, which will repair this damaged - but not completely broken - magic item.

Mending doesn't reference healing hit-point damage, and Make Whole doesn't either, although I can see what you're saying; presumably it'll heal all HP damage on a magic sword. So I'll grant you this.

Make Whole doesn't need to call it out - it's referenced in the Repairing Magic Items rules.

Make Whole also says it "functions like mending, except that make whole completely repairs an object made of any substance."

Mending has tighter limitations:

Mending repairs small breaks or tears in objects (but not warps, such as might be caused by a warp wood spell). It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists.

Ceramic or wooden objects with multiple breaks can be invisibly rejoined to be as strong as new. A hole in a leather sack or a wineskin is completely healed over by mending. The spell can repair a magic item, but the item’s magical abilities are not restored. The spell cannot mend broken magic rods, staffs, or wands, nor does it affect creatures (including constructs).

So, if I've got a damaged magic shield (which, miraculously, weighs less than 1 lb.), Mending will make it "as strong as new." If it's completely broken, then Mending will make it "as strong as new," but it will be a non-magical masterwork shield. I'll then need a caster with Craft Magic Arms and Armor to come by and re-enhance it - using the rules I pointed out later on in my last post.

If, however, my sword is damaged, Mending will only take care of "small breaks."

Is that in the SRD somewhere? I'm not seeing it--help me out.

From the description of the Craft skill:

Check: You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the craft’s daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems.

"Is this blade going to fall apart?" - also known as, "Do I need to repair this sword before I can use it?" - is a "common problem" of the Craft (Weaponsmithing) skill.

Hold on--this is a vital characteristic that's gonna come up in combat, and there's charts to determine other vital stats (the enhancements on a weapon, the spells present in a ring of storing, etc.) I have never seen an adventure with the current HP stats of a weapon encountered, although almost all adventures with wands as treasure mention how many charges are left in the wand. Why the glaring gap?

DM Fiat. Also, "Using a charge from this wand" is more likely to come up than "Sunder this sword." Thus, it's more important from an adventure-writing perspective.

 

[Pielorinho]

I quoted the damn rules. The DC to repair Masterwork weapons is 20. The cost to repair an item from "Completely Broken" to "Completely Fine" is 1/5th of the items base price.

However, most DMs I've been involved with rule that the price is applicable only to the "CB to CF" repair. Therefore, the less you actually need to repair, the less the raw materials should cost.

The rules do not specifically state this, however - as I mentioned before.

The last sentence is the point I'm getting at: if we go by your reading of the rules, we desperately need a houserule here. If we go by my reading, no such houserule is necessary.

This +5 longsword was damaged over the course of the last adventure. Gee, how do I repair it? Hmm ... It looks like it costs no more to repair this magic item with the Craft skill (that's Craft (Weaponsmithing) from above, BTW) than it would be for a completely mundane masterwork longsword.

You're right--I somehow missed this in my reply. My apologies. I've always considered this to apply to cloaks, shields, etc. damaged by things such as badly-failed reflex saves against fireballs and the like, but you're right, that it seems to apply to magic weaponry as well.

From the description of the Craft skill:

"Is this blade going to fall apart?" - also known as, "Do I need to repair this sword before I can use it?" - is a "common problem" of the Craft (Weaponsmithing) skill.

How do you get the DC for this check, though? Surely this is going to be a common problem for adventurers, almost exactly as common as sundering attempts, if we accept your reading of the rules. Why, then, must we set up another houserule to accommodate it?

My reading requires no such houserule: it asserts that the game designers knew what they were doing when they did not include such rules.

DM Fiat. Also, "Using a charge from this wand" is more likely to come up than "Sunder this sword." Thus, it's more important from an adventure-writing perspective.

Hmm--do you think it's significantly more likely that a wand will be missing a charge than that a sword will have ever had a sunder attempt against it? I'm not sure I accept that, but even if I do, I think there's a very good chance that a sword will have had the sunder attempt. Given that there's not even a suggestion in the rules that the DM determine the starting hit-points of a weapon, I think that points to the game designers not believing that this was an issue.

Another question in the next post. For the record, I'm being completely forthright in my questions.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Two questions.

1) Hypersmurf has proposed that the "strike a weapon" mentioned in the Rusting Grasp spell isn't the same as the "strike a weapon" that y'all assert is the definition of "sunder" because Rusting Grasp doesn't entail striking that weapon with a blunt weapon of your own. I'm not sure I accept that, but I'll stipulate it for now.

Because my fighter has gotten his paws on a Gauntlet of Rusting Grasp. Gauntlets are blunt weapons.

Other folks have asserted it doesn't apply because it's a different mechanic. Frankly, that's my point: a Sunder isn't just striking a weapon, it's striking a weapon and destroying it.

2) Next week, the player of Krusk might say to me, "Grrrrr! I strike at the base of the villain's sword with my greataxe, trying to knock it out of his hand!" Do I:
a) Turn to the rules for disarming, since he's clearly trying to disarm the opponent;
b) Turn to the rules for sundering, since he just told me he was striking at an opponent's weapon with his slashing weapon, and that's the definition of sundering; or
c) Turn to the disarming rules, but warn him not to use so much flavor text next time?

It seems common sense to me that I do (a): the difference between a sunder and a disarm is the intent of the attacker (and their technique). Both attacks involve striking an opponent's weapon (a disarm sometimes involves other techniques, but usually it's a strike). A disarm gets the weapon out of the hand; a sunder breaks the weapon.

And a third bonus question:
3) Sunder is (according to others) defined as "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield thatyour opponent is holding." Not that you can TRY to do this: you CAN do this. Does this mean that an unarmed attack with fists (bludgeoning weapons) can automatically strike an opponent's weapon or shield, and that the only question is whether any damage is done? If so, every spellcaster ought to give up the "unarmed touch attack" mechanic in favor of just trying to sunder an opponent's weapon or shield, since a successful touch against a shield transmits a touch spell, and you CAN use a melee attack to...strike a ...shield that your opponent is holding."

Obviously I think that's absurd, but I think it's what results from a programmatic reading of the rules. I think a common-sense reading, in which this is not a definition but rather a topic sentence, makes the whole passage make sense, doesn't raise bugaboos in conjunction with other rules, and doesn't require a set of new mechanics to deal with weapon damage.

Daniel

 

[Seeten]

I am just gonna not reply, since I think this thread has ceased all usefulness. I think if you read some of the replies, it'd foster better discussion though.

 

[Pielorinho]

I am just gonna not reply, since I think this thread has ceased all usefulness. I think if you read some of the replies, it'd foster better discussion though.

Actually, I've read all the replies, and considered them. I know you must think otherwise, but I'll ask you to trust me that my disagreement with you on this issue is after having considered the issues and the points y'all have raised. But if you're done with the discussion, that's fine.

Daniel

 

[Seeten]

So from now on, should I tell mages in my campaign that they need to make a melee attack in combat to hit with their shocking grasp, because my reading of the rules states that it is no easier to touch someones shield in a fight than it is to hit them with a sword?

This is the identical distinction we have here, and as such, to take your logic to its inevitable slippery slope conclusion, we are heading straight down the path to a single action type for all things. Sunder is different from touch because it deals damage to a target, touch delivers an affect to a target.

Striking in combat delivers damage to a target. Shocking grasp touch delivers an affect to a target. In your case, a touch rusts. In sunders case, sunder deals damage. Both are fully supported in the rules, as the SRD quotes show. Touching things is easier than striking them with force, thus we have two different mechanics for it. The "mechanistic" approach does sometimes require common sense, as all approaches do. No approach completely leaves common sense out, nor should it.

Hypersmurf certainly does not leave out common sense, he uses large heaping helpings of it. And he backs it up with quotes out of the SRD.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How do you get the DC for this check, though? Surely this is going to be a common problem for adventurers, almost exactly as common as sundering attempts, if we accept your reading of the rules. Why, then, must we set up another houserule to accommodate it?

Exactly. It's a "common problem" of the Craft. As for how I arrived at the DC, the same way that any DM arrives at a DC that is not specifically called out: I looked at comparable tasks which do have DCs spelled out, and set the Craft DC accordingly.

For reference:

Table: Difficulty Class Examples
Difficulty (DC): Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0): Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (5): Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10): Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15): Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20): Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25): Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30): Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly impossible (40): Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)

I figured "Is this sword in danger of falling apart?" is Very Easy or Easy.

My reading requires no such houserule: it asserts that the game designers knew what they were doing when they did not include such rules.

Setting DCs for various tasks is not a house rule.

Hmm--do you think it's significantly more likely that a wand will be missing a charge than that a sword will have ever had a sunder attempt against it? I'm not sure I accept that, but even if I do, I think there's a very good chance that a sword will have had the sunder attempt.

Then assign some damage to it.

 

[Pielorinho]

So from now on, should I tell mages in my campaign that they need to make a melee attack in combat to hit with their shocking grasp, because my reading of the rules states that it is no easier to touch someones shield in a fight than it is to hit them with a sword?

I'm afraid you missed my point: I DON'T think that's a good reading of the rules, and I offered my example to demonstrate why I think it's a poor reading of the rules. If you define Sunder in its plain English meaning instead of by inferring a definition from what seems to me to be a topic sentence, then we don't get these wonky results.

Hypersmurf certainly does not leave out common sense, he uses large heaping helpings of it. And he backs it up with quotes out of the SRD.

I agree. However, I think the difference is that he looks at things in a very literal fashion, whereas I'm more interested in getting the gist of a passage. When the gist contradicts a literal reading (even when that reading is, in my opinion, extreme), I think Hypersmurf tends to favor the literal reading, whereas I favor the gist reading.

With this particular example, I think even a literal reading favors my viewpoint: in order to reach the conclusion y'all are reaching, you must infer a definition where I believe none exists.

Daniel

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree. However, I think the difference is that he looks at things in a very literal fashion, whereas I'm more interested in getting the gist of a passage. When the gist contradicts a literal reading (even when that reading is, in my opinion, extreme), I think Hypersmurf tends to favor the literal reading, whereas I favor the gist reading.

I think you have fallen victim to a literal reading also. It seems to me that the basis of your arguement is that the definition of sunder is to break by force.

To break or wrench apart; sever

Having assumed that the literal meaning of the word 'sunder' must be the intent of the rule, you have assumed that that is the possible outcome of a successful attempt. An item is broken or it is not. I submit, however, that the name of the action, 'sunder,' is merely a description of the 'intent' of the action taker, not the sole definition of the action's outcome.

The rule supports a range of outcomes: failure, partial success, and success. Failure deals no damage, partial success deals damage to the item but does not break or 'sunder' it, and success deals enough damage to the item to render it unusable.

I understand your attempt to avoid bookkeepping, and that is a worthy goal in a game that seems to foster it. Your interpretation is a fine houserule to achieve this goal, but RAW supports the 'range of effect' and its attendent bookkeepping.