Please rate Improved Sunder

[Krafen]

I find it to be of very limited use.
As a player, it would be a rare situation when I was willing to destroy potential treasure. If the weapon is powerful enough to spend attacks destroying it, it is powerful enough to be valuable.
As a DM, I would hesitate to use this feat against the players except under special circumstances. I would need a good in-game reason to destroy the players equipment since doing so generally makes the game less enjoyable for the players.

 

[Lord Ben]

Huge earth elemental is only CR7 with DR /+2 and has the sunder feat. I can see it trying to break off weapons in order to not be damaged anymore.

For an NPC to take the feat in order to break weapons I can see players getting pissed.

 

[Mr.Binx]

I voted for good, but it is a suspect feat. It makes it almost too easy to slice through peoples weapons. A 2nd lv fighter should not be able to break nearly every weapon without effort. This feat is even worse in the hands of big monsters like giants. Say good-bye to your prized magic weapon.

Sunder requires opposed attack rolls, so a 2nd level fighter isn't very likely to even hit the weapon of, say, a 10th level fighter.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Sunder requires opposed attack rolls, so a 2nd level fighter isn't very likely to even hit the weapon of, say, a 10th level fighter.

The problem with sunder is it is only likely to succeed against inferior opponents because of the opposed attack roll. If you are fighting an inferior opponent in melee why aren't you killing him instead of destroying potential treasure? Why not just use disarm or grapple instead?

This is really only a compelling tactic for NPCs with good DR. Even then it is easily countered by GMW (or Magic Weapon). Your primary casters can easily defeat the DR of any creature they are likely to meet with GMW.

I am uncomfortable with sundering weapons because it only encourages PCs to rely on GMW. I doubt that is a good thing. It is also cheesy because it very easy for the DM to abuse it against the PCs, accidentally or on purpose. For those of you who like this feat, how many earth elementals have you ever seen futilely attempt to break a +3 weapon? The sundering tactic can be used against these creatures in the long haul unless the DM metagames on their behalf.

A DM who uses sunder in a fairminded way is only increasing the value of GMW in the long run.

 

[Madfox]

The only times I have seen sundered used is against archer specialists and then you do not even need the improved sunder feet. Under most circumstances trying to disarm an opponent has got a bigger chance of success with less risks and at least you can gain the item for yourself after having defeated the opponent.

 

[Chacal]

I agree with the good doctor. I've house ruled this particular feat, having it grant a bonus cleave-like attack against the weapon's wielder (if the weapon is destroyed in the sunder attempt) instead of providing double sunder damage.

Very interesting house rule. Shamelessly stolen.


Chacal

 

[Willtell]

At higher levels it's a little to easy - the first attack almost aways hits, they may be able to sunder multiple weapons a round and GMW cast by a party spellcaster may have no effect because the spell caster is not powerful enough.

 

[Stalker0]

The great thing about sunder over disarm is that you don't have to worry about all those bonuses. I like sword and board fighters, and a longsword against a guy with a greatsword has a -8 disadvantage with disarm, but its straight up with sunder.


I'd say for anyone whose going the sunder route, improved sunder is an awesome feat. All the talk about how evil it is and how it pisses off players when NPC's use shows just how powerful it can be.

 

[Tzarevitch]

I voted for good. It's a useful feat in certain situations, useless in others. It's more useful for NPCs (with access to magic weapon or greater magic weapon) than PCs and for higher level characters than lower level characters.

Tactically, sundering weapons is useful if your opponent has a very good weapon or is significantly more deadly with his primary weapon than with his backups (both of which are usually true at higher levels). At low and mid levels, however, the sunder attack is often an attack that could have killed the opponent (or at least contributed to his dropping one or two rounds sooner) but instead reduced his offensive capability.

My feelings exactly. It is of great use to strong NPCs, particularly for creatures who also need magic weapons to hit them. If the PCs only have one or two magic items capable of injuring the NPC sunder is a wondrous thing.

As far as PCs go, Improved Sunder is not that great. You are eating 3 feats to get there so you had better like something else on that feat tree too. Also, PCs tend to prefer to take magic items intact.

Tzarevitch

 

[smetzger]

Average is 6.13 after 38 votes. Which makes it #3 on the list.

1. Expert Tactician 7.86
2. Superior Expertise 6.48
3. Improved Sunder 6.13
4. Close-Quarters Fighting 5.42
5. Hold the Line 5.00
6. Blindsight, 5-foot radius 4.80
7. Fists of Iron 4.65
8. Death Blow 4.36
9. Feign Weakness 3.63
10. Extra Stunning Attacks 3.56
11. Dual Strike 3.43
12. Circle Kick 3.13
13. Eyes in the Back of Your Head 3.04
14. Eagle Claw Attack 2.73
15. Improved Overrun 2.68
16. Dirty Fighting 2.58

I think I would rather have Close-Quarters Fighting, Hold the Line or Blindsight, 5-foot radius. While it is a powerful feat I think the times that I would want to use it are few and far betweeen.