[Sunder] as an AoO.

[RigaMortus2]

All sunder on AoO does is encourage PCs to buy Adamantine weapons. The cost is low enough to be a "no duh" choice for one's favored weapon. Disarm is much more efficient at negating the action that provoked the AoO.

Of course the DM is the one that determines how readily available they are. So this may not (or ever) be an option. We tend to play in low-magic settings, so such is the case for our group. We had one PC find an Admantine Greatsword... He was a "god" for that campaign (ok, I am exaggerating a little... but only a little)...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Funny, I just had to find and look this up tonight. It is on page 222 of the 3.5 DMG, top paragraph (sad I memorized that). In order for a magic weapon to sunder the other (or a shield), it has to have an equal or greater enhancement bonus. So a +1 weapon could not sunder a +2 weapon. A +2 weapon could sunder a +1 or +2 weapon. And so on...

Except that in 3.5, as long as you can beat the hardness, you can eventually Sunder a +5 greatsword with a rusty handaxe.

Not sure what Hype is talking about in regards to errata, but this is straight from the 3.5 DMG.

It is, but the 3.5 DMG is wrong.

That's the first sentence after the boldface header, right?

Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar
information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header.
Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or
shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

You don't need equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon or shield in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Except that in 3.5, as long as you can beat the hardness, you can eventually Sunder a +5 greatsword with a rusty handaxe.



It is, but the 3.5 DMG is wrong.

That's the first sentence after the boldface header, right?

Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar
information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header.
Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or
shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

You don't need equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon or shield in 3.5.

-Hyp.

I really don't see the problem though (or, more to the point, the inconsistancy). If the info on 222 isn't consistent with the info on 217, why not ignore the inconsistancies on 217 instead? Basically, it makes sense to me that a weapon with a smaller enhancement bonus can't sunder or damage a weapon (or shield) with a higher bonus. How is this "broken" or a "problem"?

Or is this just a matter of WotC not liking the idea that magical weapons can't be broken via non-magical means? So instead of comparing enhancement bonuses, we are beefing up the hardness and HPs? Which makes them harder to break, but eventually you might be able to do it. -- Which as I said, I personaly don't prefer, so I guess we are playing the other way. I'll have to bring this new enlightenment to my DM and see what he'd rather do.

 

[Sithobi1]

Well, an errata, unlike an FAQ ruling, is an actual change to the text of the book, so the 3.5 DMG doesn't say that any more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I really don't see the problem though (or, more to the point, the inconsistancy). If the info on 222 isn't consistent with the info on 217, why not ignore the inconsistancies on 217 instead? Basically, it makes sense to me that a weapon with a smaller enhancement bonus can't sunder or damage a weapon (or shield) with a higher bonus. How is this "broken" or a "problem"?

Or is this just a matter of WotC not liking the idea that magical weapons can't be broken via non-magical means? So instead of comparing enhancement bonuses, we are beefing up the hardness and HPs? Which makes them harder to break, but eventually you might be able to do it. -- Which as I said, I personaly don't prefer, so I guess we are playing the other way. I'll have to bring this new enlightenment to my DM and see what he'd rather do.

In 3E, each point of enhancement bonus added +1 to hardness and hit points, and weapons were immune to weapons of lesser enhancement.

In 3.5, they changed it - and that change can be found on DMG p317 and PHB p165 - but on DMG p322, the old text was accidentally left in.

The errata correct this mistake.

It's not 'broken' or 'a problem'; it's just not the rule in 3.5.

-Hyp.