Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 2159655" data-attributes="member: 259">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; orc) 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</blockquote>

Verification