Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 376304" data-attributes="member: 1118">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.&nbsp; If the archer moves away I've lost my chance to sunder the bow.&nbsp; Sure, it's helping keep the archer under control, and that may be enough for some people's campaigns but not for me.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you want to destroy his shield then this premise doesn't make sense.&nbsp; Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding how you wanted this rule to work.IceBear</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IceBear, post: 376304, member: 1118"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification