D&D 3E/3.5 Sundering a bow in 3.5

[Ovinomancer]

I have a complex question about sundering. This situation came up in our game, and I want some input on how it should be handled.

My character attempted to sunder the bow of a really nasty archer. My GM ruled that, according to the sunder rules, the archer got his full attack bonus for the opposed attack roll. This meant that I was rolling against about a +25 bonus (a REALLY nasty archer). On first glance at the sunder rules, this seems to be what the rules imply. I'm not sure I agree. If I were attacking an arrow that the archer was firing, then perhaps he should get the full bonus, but since I am attacking his bow, shouldn't he only get a bonus as if he were using it as a melee weapon?

We are using 3.5 rules, and the sunder rules are on pg 158 of the PHB.

Thanks

 

[Amal Shukup]

I have a complex question about sundering. This situation came up in our game, and I want some input on how it should be handled.

My character attempted to sunder the bow of a really nasty archer. My GM ruled that, according to the sunder rules, the archer got his full attack bonus for the opposed attack roll. This meant that I was rolling against about a +25 bonus (a REALLY nasty archer). On first glance at the sunder rules, this seems to be what the rules imply. I'm not sure I agree. If I were attacking an arrow that the archer was firing, then perhaps he should get the full bonus, but since I am attacking his bow, shouldn't he only get a bonus as if he were using it as a melee weapon?

We are using 3.5 rules, and the sunder rules are on pg 158 of the PHB.

Thanks

Mmmnn. Tricky. I'm not sure if this is handled anywhere in the Rules. It does not appear to be in any of the relevant sections. I hope someone pipes up if the rules are lurking around somewhere...

Couple of thoughts:

• He doesn't threaten, so no AOO
• The opposed rolls are Melee attacks. So your archer at least needs to subtract bonusses due to ranged specific feats etc..
• He'd also need to use his BAB+STR instead of BAB+Dex, on account of a bow is not a finessable weapon - even if he had the feat.
• Not the way a bow oughtta be used, so I'd slap a -4 on him.
• On the other hand, no reason he couldn't use both hands and get a +4 to the opposed roll for that.

I think that's fair. Its better for the Archer this way than if we just considered the bow a 'held object', which is not an unreasonable interpretation either...

A'Mal

 

[Gansk]

I think that's fair. Its better for the Archer this way than if we just considered the bow a 'held object', which is not an unreasonable interpretation either...

A'Mal

Treat the bow as a carried object - the AC is 13 + the archer's dex bonus.

Do not use opposed rolls - just roll to hit the AC and resolve the damage if you hit.

 

[molonel]

Looks like a classic case of a smart player figuring out how to rear-end one of the DMs pet NPC projects. You did the right thing. Good for you. Sundering is a bee-otch for archers, and it sounds like your DM narfed you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

[*]On the other hand, no reason he couldn't use both hands and get a +4 to the opposed roll for that.

No - the +4 bonus only applies to two-handed weapons. In 3.5, "Light", "One-Handed", and "Two-Handed" weapons are specific designations for melee weapons, not how you're holding something.

A bow is not a two-handed weapon in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Treat the bow as a carried object - the AC is 13 + the archer's dex bonus.

Do not use opposed rolls - just roll to hit the AC and resolve the damage if you hit.

This is the advice presented in the 3E Main FAQ. In both 3E and in 3.5, it's not actually specified in the Core rules that a non-melee weapon is treated any differently - you can't initiate a Sunder with a ranged weapon, but the way the rules are worded, if they attack your weapon with a melee weapon, you oppose his attack with an attack roll. It doesn't say that this only applies if the weapon attacked is a melee weapon.

So the DM does has a firm position to stand on.

On the other hand, you could present him with this answer from the 3E Main FAQ, p41, and note that the language of the Core rules has not significantly changed in 3.5, so the answer is theoretically just as applicable to the revision:

Also, don’t forget grappling or striking the foe’s weapon.
Most spellcasters won’t be holding a weapon, and foes holding
ranged weapons don’t threaten you, so you don’t have to worry
about triggering an attack of opportunity when using either
tactic. Foes you’ve grappled can’t step away from you until
they escape your hold. Striking a foe’s weapon is often less
troublesome, and if you break it, you won’t need to worry
about ranged attacks. Normally you need to make an opposed
attack roll to strike a foe’s weapon or shield, but if the item
you’re striking is not a melee weapon or a shield, just use the
rules for striking a held, carried, or worn object (pages 135 and
136 in the Player’s Handbook). Again, you’d normally trigger
an attack of opportunity for striking the foe’s equipment, but a
foe armed with a ranged weapon doesn’t threaten you.
This can be a very effective tactic against opponents armed
with bows. A longbow, composite longbow, or heavy crossbow
has an Armor Class of 14 (base 10, –1 for size, +5 for being a
held object) plus the wielder’s Dexterity bonus and whatever
deflection bonus the wielder might have, which makes it a
fairly easy target. A shortbow, short composite bow, light
crossbow, or repeating crossbow has an Armor Class of 15,
which is same as a longbow, but they have no size adjustment
because these weapons are Medium-size. Bows have hardness
5 and 2 hit points (just like spears), crossbows are tougher
(hardness 10, 5 hit points). If you have multiple attacks, it’s
usually best to aim your attacks with the highest attack bonuses
at the opponent and save your later attacks with lower attack
bonuses for the weapon. Often, you’ll have difficulty hitting the
opponent with these attacks, but you’ll find the weapon an
easier target.

Personally, I agree that a bow should be treated as a held object, but I disagree that multiple attacks are allowed, since both Sunder a Weapon and Sunder an Object are standard actions.

-Hyp.

 

[Gansk]

Personally, I agree that a bow should be treated as a held object, but I disagree that multiple attacks are allowed, since both Sunder a Weapon and Sunder an Object are standard actions.

-Hyp.

The most recent Sage Advice ruled that Sundering was not a standard action, it replaces an attack. See the James McMurray thread on this board.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The most recent Sage Advice ruled that Sundering was not a standard action, it replaces an attack.

I know what the Sage said; it doesn't follow what's written in the Core rules.

I like the "bow as a held object" rule from the FAQ - I'm happy to introduce it as a house rule, rather than using what's actually written.

I don't see the need to allow Sunder to substitute for an melee attack, so I'd rather use the rules as written in that case.

-Hyp.

 

[Amal Shukup]

The most recent Sage Advice ruled that Sundering was not a standard action, it replaces an attack. See the James McMurray thread on this board.

Yup. That's the way the SRD reads as well.

From the SRD:
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.
​

I find Hyps' citation from the 3E FAQ persuasive though - A non-melee weapon is a held object.

And you can whack at it with each iterative attack too.

There's a hyper-specialized archer in my group that's gonna by cryin' himself to sleep soon. I've been saving up some Sundering enemies as a special treat...

Well, it's gonna be a treat for ME...

A'Mal

 

[AGGEMAM]

For what it is worth the SRD says that sunder replaces a melee attack.

SUNDER
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

I think that is the proper interpretation. Meaning you can repeatedly try to sunder in a round (if you have several melee attacks).