Sunder -- The most useful useless feat

[Elder-Basilisk]

I thought you were enjoying a little hyperbole, after all it's what the internet was invented for. I don't hear advocates of armies of 1 HD kobolds running around with improved sunder.

No kidding. 1 HD kobolds suck at sundering stuff. Now 1 HD blessed, Bull's strengthed orcish barbarians who chug a potion of divine favor, I can definitely see.

The problem with using mooks for sunder is that they usually can't win the opposed attack roll and often don't deal enough damage to actually break a melee weapon in one shot anyway.

Unless the DM has legions of foes who are willing to attack without regard for their lives and actually winning the fight but simply want to break stuff the PCs' weapons, Sunder's usefulness will be limited to two situations:
1. Significant fights against big villains
2. Dealing with archers who think they're using a 10' reach weapon.

The problem of using sunder is this:
In order to use it effectively on a melee weapon, the villain must be of at least comparable power to the PC being sundered. Otherwise, the PC will probably win the opposed attack roll.

The villain also needs to be optimized for damage dealing and/or have improved sunder. One handed weapons will rarely succeed in sundering either large or bladed weapons in a single attack.

The villain also needs to be in a situation where one PC is dealing significantly more damage to him than other sources in the combat--otherwise, the attack he sacrifices will have little effect on the amount of damage he takes.

The PC inflicting the damage also needs to be relatively dependant upon one weapon. If a character is carrying a glaive, a light flail, a heavy pick, armor spikes, and a dagger of similar quality, the villain doesn't really accomplish a whole lot by making the character switch weapons unless the character is focussed around the use of one weapon. This makes sunder better at mid to high levels when fighter types are likely to be using weapon specialization, improved critical, and powerfully magic weapons. Consequently switching to a backup weapon is more of a disadvantage.

It's also a bad idea to use Sunder if the villain could concievably drop the PC with his attack sequence instead. A dead or dying PC is less of a threat than one who just switches to a backup weapon.

Consequently, the mechanics of Sunder dictate that it will usually not be useful outside of the situation in which it's most dramatic.

 

[Marshall]

You haven't put alot of thought into this, have you?

Yes I have. Charging a(competent) Archer should be the last stupid mistake you ever make. The way it is now, its not only a viable option, but the best tactic. Mechanics-wise it would take a whole different kind of AoO because some things that draw an AoO from melee shouldnt from range.

<shrugs>
But thats a whole new thread...

 

[Ravellion]

Yes I have. Charging a(competent) Archer should be the last stupid mistake you ever make. The way it is now, its not only a viable option, but the best tactic. Mechanics-wise it would take a whole different kind of AoO because some things that draw an AoO from melee shouldnt from range.

Charging 20 strong Axemen solitarily should be lethal as well. Oh wait.... didn't my 8th level paladin wade through 20 orcs to kill the shaman...?

Moving 10 feet towards an archer and trying to sunder his bow - sure as hell you don't get an AoO.

Why is it always archers? I never hear people say "I try and do this and this incredibly cool hyper maneuvre with my sword". Swordsman players know we are playing the game D&D. Some RL archers expect that every archer character will be able to kill some one in 2 seconds with one well aimed arrow. That's what the x3 crit range is for. Suck it up and stay out of melee.

Rav

 

[Tom Cashel]

Just a thought...

It isn't easy to Sunder a magic weapon. You first have to hit it with a weapon of equal "+" and then do enough damage to get through its hit points. Not always a done deal just because you win on the opposed attack rolls.

...or am I stating the obvious?

In any case, I like Sunder. Bust it all!

 

[Rackhir]

Re: Just a thought...

It isn't easy to Sunder a magic weapon. You first have to hit it with a weapon of equal "+" and then do enough damage to get through its hit points. Not always a done deal just because you win on the opposed attack rolls.

...or am I stating the obvious?

In any case, I like Sunder. Bust it all!

You aren't stating the obvious, you are missing something obvious. With GMW, it is extremely easy to "have" a weapon of sufficient + to sunder any weapon that you come across, especially since the + you get is likely to be higher on average than the + on the weapons you come across.

Especially with Improved Sunder doubling the HP you do and a reasonably high damage weapon, many weapons WILL get sundered in one shot, given a moderately effective wielder, especially if you are talking about sundering a relatively fragile weapon like a bow.

Given a foe with an 18 str, Greatsword, improved sunder and GMW of +4, he will be inflicting an average of
(4*1.5 (str bonus + Two Handed weapon) + 7 (avg dam 2d6) + 4 (GMW)) * 2 = 34 points of damage.

I don't have access to my books so I don't know exactly what that will "kill" in terms of weapons, but even given these relatively modest assumptions it sure sounds like it would kill most non-adamatite weapons.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: Re: Just a thought...

You aren't stating the obvious, you are missing something obvious.

Given a foe with an 18 str, Greatsword, improved sunder and GMW of +4, he will be inflicting an average of
(4*1.5 (str bonus + Two Handed weapon) + 7 (avg dam 2d6) + 4 (GMW)) * 2 = 34 points of damage.

I wouldn't call it "obvious," but it's a good point.

I still think that tactics in the PHb are meant to be used, by DMs and players alike. Players who won't Sunder enemy weapons because it's "good treasure" are metagaming, and players who protest over their favorite sword getting smashed are likely to complain about a whole bunch of other things. D&D is just a game, and it's more fun (IMO, IMC!) to role-play the results of unfortunate events than it is to argue over them.

 

[IceBear]

What if we changed the rules slightly? In order to sunder an item, your weapon must "naturally" have the same enhancement (ie, pluses from GMW wouldn't count for purposes of sundering)

How's that for a start?

IceBear

 

[Stalker0]

What if we changed the rules slightly? In order to sunder an item, your weapon must "naturally" have the same enhancement (ie, pluses from GMW wouldn't count for purposes of sundering)

How's that for a start?

IceBear

I agree Bear, I posted that earlier, but unfortunately, I guess no one seems to like the idea much.

 

[IceBear]

Oh, I missed that post then. Didn't mean to still your idea

IceBear

 

[Rackhir]

What if we changed the rules slightly? In order to sunder an item, your weapon must "naturally" have the same enhancement (ie, pluses from GMW wouldn't count for purposes of sundering)

How's that for a start?

IceBear

It is a good solutions, the problem is that the thread rapidly degenerated from "How to solve this problem" into a "Sunder is wonderful and should be used consistantly against whinny players" debate. The one problem that I see, is that it is somewhat hard to justify from a rules mechanics stand point (ie. if it's not good enough for sunder, why is it good enough for overcoming DR?), but it would hardly be the only thing in the rules for which that is true.