Sunder -- The most useful useless feat

[IceBear]

You know, I don't think this thread is advocating all DMs go out of their way to sunder a character's favorite weapon - it's just advocating using intelligent tactics where necessary.

I've read this entire thread and I don't feel that the majority of posters were advocating sundering at every opportunity. What they were reacting to was a player that got so upset at the use of good tactics against him that it made his DM reluctant to use good tactics in the future (not necessarily sunder). I don't know the full situation that happened in game, but it seems to me that the only character the drow had to fear was the archer, and since the archer allowed the drow to get close enough to sunder the bow, then that seems like the smart thing for the drow to do. Sure, I would have been reluctant to destroy a player's prized item, but when difficult decisions come up I like to explain my decision to the player beforehand so that he understands that it's nothing personal. If the player can't handle that, well, maybe he needs to take a step back from the game and realize that it is only a game.

IceBear

 

[Wolf72]

to strike a weapon v. Excalibur I'd use Stormbringer!

 

[Darklone]

Yeahyeah... walking around with a golfbag. "Uhm, it's a type VII demon, let's use the +5 flaming demonbane mace of annihilation or the +2 longsword +6 against magic using demons with blinding effect ..."

I think the problem itself was that the player was used to shoot at someone close enough to attempt a sunder or relied on his magical weapon (unsunderable by standard enemies).

As for magical weapons: I like them scarce and unreliable. A magical weapon in my games tends to attune to it's master (or the other way round). Therefore the magical longsword of a longtime anniversary may be dangerous to wield for the groups fighter.

I do admit that D&D game mechanisms and the 3rd edition shopping mentality (or do-it-yourself-magicks) does not support that... But in a world where it's hard to get +3 weapons and where the weapons grow with the wielders... (and where GMW may be limited to lvl3 weapons...)

Sunder does happen but won't kill famous swords.

 

[hong]

As for magical weapons: I like them scarce and unreliable. A magical weapon in my games tends to attune to it's master (or the other way round). Therefore the magical longsword of a longtime anniversary may be dangerous to wield for the groups fighter.

Longtime anniversary? They fight him once a year, do they?

Anyway, to get around the problem of mundane magic in my Britannia 3E campaign. I allow everyone to imbue items with magic, in a manner similar to that laid out in the "Levelled Treasures" article in Dragon 289. This is to encourage people to develop an attachment to the stuff they carry it around, instead of dumping it as soon as something better comes along. As part of this, an imbued item's powers works only for the person who imbued it; for anyone else, it's just a regular, nonmagical object.

So far, the group has been denied the services of a +1 glaive, +1 shortspear, +1 breastplate, +1 ring of protection, and +4 bracers of armour. I figure they'll start doing the imbuing thing themselves soon.

 

[Darklone]

Longtime anniversary? They fight him once a year, do they?

Hong, you old scoundrel, don't stop picking on this old German bulldog, otherwise I could think I could speak English

Anyway, to get around the problem of mundane magic in my Britannia 3E campaign. I allow everyone to imbue items with magic, in a manner similar to that laid out in the "Levelled Treasures" article in Dragon 289. This is to encourage people to develop an attachment to the stuff they carry it around, instead of dumping it as soon as something better comes along. As part of this, an imbued item's powers works only for the person who imbued it; for anyone else, it's just a regular, nonmagical object.

So far, the group has been denied the services of a +1 glaive, +1 shortspear, +1 breastplate, +1 ring of protection, and +4 bracers of armour. I figure they'll start doing the imbuing thing themselves soon.

I tried to get that Dragon somewhere... still looking. But I do handle it similar though more handwaving and less rules. That's bad for the players though sometimes

 

[novyet]

Myself, our other DM, and our players all love to break objects, it some cases we've done it, to cut down on the damage we're receiving, in another case, it was because a villian I was using loved to use all sorts of combat manuevers instead of just attacking straight out. A friend of mine had his character's family heirloom sundered and then had it rebuilt better than before. It was a cool story element if nothing else. Apparently our opinions are far different than many others.

 

[Krail Stromquism]

Sundering and Disarming

Why hasnt anyone brought up Disarming? its nearly as easy for Strong opponents, plus if they have an open hand and Improved Disarm they can snatch the weapon, or manage to pick it up before the PC can react.

I recently used Sunder for the first time against my PCs and yeah they were pissed. I used the Female Bugbear from the recent Dragon Mag and rearranged her feats and gave her Improved Sunder, with that its SUPER easy to break weapons and shields.

PCs arent defenseless though! In FRCP and MoF there are rules applenty for weapon Materials. Sick of your weapon getting busted all the time try making it out of some other material! Or make rules for repairing Magic Items that favor the PC.

In an OLD campaign I played in all magic Items had the quality of being unbreakable unless you purposely wanted to break it. BUT magic items were much rarer and in fact all Carded, meaning that when you got Flametongue you had THE only flametongue. Well there were maybe 5 of each weapon form the DMG but still you got the card, and you had a special item. It increased the sense of value immeasurabley. 3E is realy set up for that now that people lose XP for making items instead of gaining it.

anyhow, Sunder is Great, Improved Sunder is even better but give your villians a reason to use it! Having mooks use it is a waste, save it for that next big bad guy or girl!

As a side note, use the same mechanic as a Grapple for regular Sundering, if the PC damages the opponent with the AoO then they fail to make the Sunder and give them a normal attack or none at all. That evens out the ease of weapon breaking.

Oh that reminds me, how long would it take a normal person with average stats weilding a longsword to Sunder a weapon? it take at least a few rounds. Thats just for those people saying Sunder isnt a valid medevil tactic. No foot army will run around Sundering stuff cause they are all 1st level average Joes that have next to no chance of succeeding, D&D villians or PCs are far from average in all senses.

Anyway, I gotta go the the Super Bowl to watch the Browns play, if you know what I mean!

WORD!

 

[JChung2003]

To all you folks who think sunder is bad, let me introduce you to Aragorn. See, he has this broken sword...

 

[Martin Olarin]

Re: Sundering and Disarming

Oh that reminds me, how long would it take a normal person with average stats weilding a longsword to Sunder a weapon? it take at least a few rounds. Thats just for those people saying Sunder isnt a valid medevil tactic. No foot army will run around Sundering stuff cause they are all 1st level average Joes that have next to no chance of succeeding, D&D villians or PCs are far from average in all senses.
WORD!

A point to consider is that attacking another's weapon wasn't noted as a viable option for anyone - includeing famous warriors who wouldn't be "average joe's". I vaguely recall reading somewhere that a man well versed in the use of a quaterstaff could break poorly made or thin swords but that is the only example I can think of. If there are some military history buffs out there who want to pipe in with how realistic this feat is I would love to hear it but for my .02 I think it is way to easy to sunder some weapons. I'm not a fan of house rules but if my players come to me and say they would like to make or purchase sturdier weapons I would have no objection.

 

[IceBear]

I can appreciate players getting attached to pieces of equipment, but I don't pull my punches on killing their characters (where it makes sense) to which they are probably even more attached.

If the party has the dragon near death, but suddenly clump together I'm not going to have the dragon not breath on them if it's going to kill a few of them (it's sound tactics on the part of the dragon).

Sure, the characters can be raised, but - as was pointed out by the "Nay-to-Sunder" camp - they will lose a level in most cases - so it's not something that the player is going to like either.

I will not allow myself to be restrained just because a player can't appreciate what makes sense in the *game*. I'm one of those soft hearted DMs that would probably do something to make it up to the player in the next session anyway

IceBear