Sundered Weapons are BROKEN!

[Rel]

One of the perq's of being a community supporter of ENWorld is that you get access to the search function. I think that being able to read everything Elder_Basilisk has written is, in itself, worth the price.

I'll take that under advisement, Cheiromancer. I was in fact poised to become a "community supporter" right about the time I lost my job. Now that I'm re-employed, I plan to make that step right after I get the rest of my family finances in order.

It will be very nice to be able to use the search function.

 

[Marshall]

Sunder the feat only allows you to NOT get an AoO when doing the actual action.

Otherwise ANYONE can do the action and break a weapon if they are willing to take the AoO.

This would probably be the best House Rule on the subject.

Change the feat so that you have to take it to Sunder and then change the realllly overpowered Imp Sunder to just removing the AoO.

 

[IceBear]

Why stop there? For a -13 to-hit penalty(-8 Size, -5 Held object bonus), according to the rules, I bypass that Dragons +26 nat armor bonus and put an arrow thru his eyeball.

Whats the difference between that and attacking the potion on the guys belt?

For that matter whats the AC? 10+DEX+DEF? So its actually easier to hit a potion vial(Size -8 ) on a guys belt than sitting on a table if the guy has no DEX/DEF bonus? AC 13 vs AC 10? Huh?!?
(Size is irrelevant[apparently] if the item is carried).

Nope, sorry. Youre into the realm of 'called shot' rules here and that is definitely a no-no in the 3e abstract combat system.

I see what you're saying, but since the rules actually describe attacking an attended object (notice, these rules only apply to objects and not body parts)I was staying within the rules with my example (there's an example in the PHB with attacking a wand). All I was trying to do was remind everyone that if someone is going to come up with a house rule for Sunder they have to take all situations into account, not just ones in which you're responding to an attack with a melee weapon.

IceBear

 

[Bastoche]

Why stop there? For a -13 to-hit penalty(-8 Size, -5 Held object bonus), according to the rules, I bypass that Dragons +26 nat armor bonus and put an arrow thru his eyeball.

Whats the difference between that and attacking the potion on the guys belt?

For that matter whats the AC? 10+DEX+DEF? So its actually easier to hit a potion vial(Size -8 ) on a guys belt than sitting on a table if the guy has no DEX/DEF bonus? AC 13 vs AC 10? Huh?!?
(Size is irrelevant[apparently] if the item is carried).

Nope, sorry. Youre into the realm of 'called shot' rules here and that is definitely a no-no in the 3e abstract combat system.

From the SRD
Attacking a held, carried, or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity. Objects that are held, carried, or worn by a combatant, are harder to hit. The object uses the combatant's Dexterity modifier (not its own -5) and any magic deflection bonus to AC the combatant may have.

I guess it means the -13 stacks with the dragon AC (expect the "natural" part) But an "eyeball" is not an object.

 

[Marshall]

I see what you're saying, but since the rules actually describe attacking an attended object (notice, these rules only apply to objects and not body parts)I was staying within the rules with my example (there's an example in the PHB with attacking a wand).

Thats my point. They created a special case rule to cover something that is specifically banned in other sections of the book. As for attacking the wand-in-hand, its just another weapon, why the special rules set for it? Because it would be way to easy to destroy it without some special way to defend it.

 

[IceBear]

Marshall, this is another topic entirely that I have no desire to debate. I'm just pointing out the the proposed sunder house rule in this thread doesn't cover all the bases - mainly sundering a bow or crossbow before the archer shoots at you. I had thought that this was a good houserule until I realized that it went too far the other way in keeping bows from being sundered. It might be just the solution for some campaigns, but not for mine.

IceBear

 

[Kai Lord]

Marshall, this is another topic entirely that I have no desire to debate. I'm just pointing out the the proposed sunder house rule in this thread doesn't cover all the bases - mainly sundering a bow or crossbow before the archer shoots at you.

But it does cover that. Note that I suggested it be a Readied Action. Readied Actions come before the actions that trigger them. And I was joking about the extra feat for striking an object.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm going to throw in the house rule I think i'm going to use to allwo sunders in the game. Basically when someone tries to sunder an object you are carrying, before damage is rolled you can choose to drop the item, turning the sunder attempt into a disarm. I'm still debating on whether or not the item should get off scot free or take 1/2 damage.

My other thought was the item should get a save just like if you had rolled a one on your save vs a fireball. Make the DC the damge done. But I think I'm going with the top rule for 1/2 damage and if I still think sunder is overpowered then try one of my othe ideas.

 

[Marshall]

Marshall, this is another topic entirely that I have no desire to debate. I'm just pointing out the the proposed sunder house rule in this thread doesn't cover all the bases - mainly sundering a bow or crossbow before the archer shoots at you. I had thought that this was a good houserule until I realized that it went too far the other way in keeping bows from being sundered. It might be just the solution for some campaigns, but not for mine.

IceBear

Oopd, Sorry. Didn't mean to nearly highjack the thread with my Rant.

On the other hand, I think the readied action option works equally well for Bows and other objects.

 

[IceBear]

Ok...I'm fighting an archer that's really, really hurting us.

With the present rules, if I can get within melee range I can destroy his bow.

With this rule, I might never be able to sunder the weapon as I have to get within range of the archer and then ready an action to attack his bow if he uses it. If the archer moves away I've lost my chance to sunder the bow. Sure, it's helping keep the archer under control, and that may be enough for some people's campaigns but not for me. It's just too round about of a way to destroy a large object that someone is carrying around.

It was my understanding that the premise for the readied action was to hit the weapon on the downswing to make it more believable. If you want to destroy his shield then this premise doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding how you wanted this rule to work.

IceBear