Sundering a Shield? Opposed Attack Roll?

[Hypersmurf]

You certainly can attempt to do so.

Another easy call!

I disagree. That section is a subheading under the "Strike a Weapon" heading, and the FAQ has clarified that ranged weapons do not use the "Strike a Weapon" rules, but rather the "Strike an Object" rules.

You say that Improved Sunder affects shields because shields are part of the 3E definition of Strike a Weapon. I say bows do not enjoy immunity from weapons of lower enhancement, because they are not a part of that definition.

-Hyp.

 

[Corwin]

I'm not going to get into whether bows are immune to lesser enhancement bonuses.

I will say though, that bows do not get Sundered. They are treated like attended objects when attacked. That's because people don't tend to block a sword with their bow.

 

[Endur]

I calculate the opposed role for the defender with a shield as:
strength, BAB, enhancement bonus of the shield, and anything else that is relevant.

No penalty for two-weapon fighting, unless the defender is actually fighting with two weapons (i.e. a sword + shield guy who only swings with his sword doesn't take a TWF penalty)

I would allow Sunder and Improved Sunder to work against Shields (although I agree that there is some ambiguity there).

Tom

When someone strike an enemy's shied (sunder action), how shall I calculate bonus for opposed attack roll for the defender? Assuming the defender is using his shield as a shild, not as a weapon in that turn,

a) Calculate as if the defender is doing a shield bash. No penalty
b) Calculate as if the defender is doing a shield bash. Apply off-hand penalty.
c) Calculate as if the defender is doing a shield bash. Apply off-hand penalty and two-weapon fighting penalty.
d) Non of the above.

 

[Artoomis]

I disagree. That section is a subheading under the "Strike a Weapon" heading, and the FAQ has clarified that ranged weapons do not use the "Strike a Weapon" rules, but rather the "Strike an Object" rules.

You say that Improved Sunder affects shields because shields are part of the 3E definition of Strike a Weapon. I say bows do not enjoy immunity from weapons of lower enhancement, because they are not a part of that definition.

-Hyp.

First, the FAQ mentions this "ruling" as basically an aside in answering another question, not very authoritative, that.

Second, the SRD does not group the rules the same way, so that rules for magic weapons and shields is not under "attack a weapon."

Third, even if the sage really feels that bows should be treated as an object under "attacking an object," that does not change the fact that the rules, as written, would include bows as "weapons."

It's an enormous stretch to think that this mention of bows as object, buried inside paragraphs dealing with a different issue, should mean that the rule for attacking magic weapons does not apply to them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's an enormous stretch to think that this mention of bows as object, buried inside paragraphs dealing with a different issue, should mean that the rule for attacking magic weapons does not apply to them.

I'm sorry?

It's a stretch to go from "Attacking a bow does not use the rules for attacking a weapon" to "Attacking a bow does not use the rules for attacking a magic weapon"?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm sorry?

It's a stretch to go from "Attacking a bow does not use the rules for attacking a weapon" to "Attacking a bow does not use the rules for attacking a magic weapon"?

-Hyp.

In word. Yes.

At least in the manner in which you propose. Do you really think that what was essentially a side remark re-defining "attack a weapon" to only include melee weapons was also meant to not include ranged weapons as magic weapons under the rules for attacking magic weapons.

I am the consumate rules lawyer and even I would never propose such a thing. It's ludicrous.

 

[IceBear]

I agree - I think the main reason The Sage ruled sundering bows as attacking an object is as described above - with a bow you're probably trying to get the bow out of the way of the attack as opposed to using it to block the attack like melee weapons would probably do. I don't think that this means you shouldn't still use the rules for magic weapons being sundered once the attack hits.

IceBear

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am the consumate rules lawyer and even I would never propose such a thing. It's ludicrous.

I, on the other hand, would say that while it violates the spirit of the rules, it falls within the letter... and that instances where the two conflict are the natural habitat of the "consumate rules lawyer".

-Hyp.

 

[Corwin]

I agree - I think the main reason The Sage ruled sundering bows as attacking an object is as described above - with a bow you're probably trying to get the bow out of the way of the attack as opposed to using it to block the attack like melee weapons would probably do. I don't think that this means you shouldn't still use the rules for magic weapons being sundered once the attack hits.

IceBear

Yep. That was precisely one of my points. (I just didn't want to get directly into that slightly heated sub-debate, is all.)

 

[Artoomis]

I, on the other hand, would say that while it violates the spirit of the rules, it falls within the letter... and that instances where the two conflict are the natural habitat of the "consumate rules lawyer".

-Hyp.

And I would say the "letter of the rule" is what is published in the rule books, plus errata, not the FAQ.

So there.

P.S. From the FAQ:

If you have a question about the D&D game rules, chances are that you’ll find them within this FAQ...

It does NOT say that rule changes in the FAQ are official; in fact, WotC has previously stated just the opposite, that only published errata represents "official" rules changes.

From the errata page:

Here are the updated rules corrections and official errata ...

As you can see, if it's not in the errata, it's not "official."

Rules lawyering at its best!

That, of course, has nothing to do with how you "should" play this rule, only what is truly "offical."