Sundering a Shield? Opposed Attack Roll?

[Stalker0]

Yeah I agree that sunder does apply to shields as well.

But tower shields, that's interesting because its more of a wall then. I'd say its strike an object then with a simple AC to hit, instead of opposed attack roles (but hey, no improved sunder

 

[kreynolds]

I'd say its strike an object then with a simple AC to hit, instead of opposed attack roles (but hey, no improved sunder

Why? It's a shield. If you can sunder a shield, you can sunder a tower shield. Or is the requirement for a shield to be a 'true shield' that you must be able to use it as a weapon as well, which is why it is grouped in the "strike a weapon" option?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why? It's a shield. If you can sunder a shield, you can sunder a tower shield. Or is the requirement for a shield to be a 'true shield' that you must be able to use it as a weapon as well, which is why it is grouped in the "strike a weapon" option?

Or perhaps that it provide the apocryphal "shield bonus" to AC, which would allow you to sunder bucklers, but not tower shields

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

Or perhaps that it provide the apocryphal "shield bonus" to AC, which would allow you to sunder bucklers, but not tower shields

If you go by the explicit wording from "Strike a Weapon" in the PH, then the AC bonus has nothing to do with it. It is grouping shields with weapons, mentioning nothing about the AC bonus. Weapons don't provide an AC bonus, but some shields can be used as weapons. The wording of "Strike a Weapon", which is what is being used for the defense against my argument, demands you cannot sunder a tower shield because it cannot be used as a weapon.

It's ambiguous and contraditory, which is why I don't think you can use Sunder on a shield.

 

[Artoomis]

If you go by the explicit wording from "Strike a Weapon" in the PH, then the AC bonus has nothing to do with it. It is grouping shields with weapons, mentioning nothing about the AC bonus. Weapons don't provide an AC bonus, but some shields can be used as weapons. The wording of "Strike a Weapon", which is what is being used for the defense against my argument, demands you cannot sunder a tower shield because it cannot be used as a weapon.

It's ambiguous and contraditory, which is why I don't think you can use Sunder on a shield.

Hmmm...

Strike a weapon [Standard][AoO: Yes]

Description: A combatant can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that a combatant's opponent is holding. The attacking weapon must be no more than one size category smaller than the weapon attacked. (Treat a buckler as Small, a small shield as Medium-size, a large shield as Large, and a tower shield as Huge.) Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent because the combatant is diverting it's attention from the opponent to the opponent's armaments.

There is no ambiguity or contrariness in that statement - it's quite clear. If you "strike a weapon" in D&D, you are using a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield. That's what it means to "strike a weapon" in D&D.

What could be more clear?

The only problem is when you try and think of it as striking a weapon in the plain english sense of the word, as opposed to being a technical term (or term of art, if you like) of "strike a weapon." Technical terms have specific definitions that are not necessarily obvious by the words themselves.

 

[kreynolds]

There is no ambiguity or contrariness in that statement

Not in your statement, no. But in other's, it wasn't clear.

What could be more clear?

You were. Thank you for clearing that up.

The only problem is when you try and think of it as striking a weapon in the plain english sense of the word, as opposed to being a technical term (or term of art, if you like) of "strike a weapon." Technical terms have specific definitions that are not necessarily obvious by the words themselves.

The actual problem that I'm having is that both Improved Sunder and Sunder specfically state "When you strike an opponent’s weapon" and "When you strike at an opponent’s weapon". Neither of these feats mentions shields, and I don't see any cause to assume that shields are to be included. The Sunder feat references "Strike a Weapon", but both feats are also very clear that they apply to weapons. I think it's a stretch to say that the feats also apply to shields when they make no such mention of it.

 

[Artoomis]

The actual problem that I'm having is that both Improved Sunder and Sunder specfically state "When you strike an opponent’s weapon" and "When you strike at an opponent’s weapon". Neither of these feats mentions shields, and I don't see any cause to assume that shields are to be included. The Sunder feat references "Strike a Weapon", but both feats are also very clear that they apply to weapons. I think it's a stretch to say that the feats also apply to shields when they make no such mention of it.

Actually, I think it's a stretch to think that "striking an opponent's weapon" somehow means something other than "strike a weapon" as defined in 3e D&D action, "strike a weapon."

If it was meant to mean something else, it should make that clear by specifically excluding shields, since they are specifically included by the "strike a weapon" action.

 

[kreynolds]

Actually, I think it's a stretch to think that "striking an opponent's weapon" somehow means something other than "strike a weapon" as defined in 3e D&D action, "strike a weapon."

Then we disagree.

 

[Artoomis]

Then we disagree.

Say it ain't so!!

 

[kreynolds]

Say it ain't so!!

Yesum, uh...yesum, yesum...uh...yesum, I do believe so, sir!