sundering a weapon

[Sodalis]

hey yall,

I just ran into apickle and was wonderin if yall can hep me out...

In our last adv, a rogue with super dex was picking things off left and right, and so the MD sundered his bow- fair deal? sure- but it seemed too easy:

we are playing Iron fortress and the rogue has a +4 frost bow. one of the metal cat looking things just bit it and snapped it in two. I said, " the bow is +4, is the metal thingy a +4?" and he says "yes"

what I am wondering- without spoiling the adv, assuming that the cat metal thingy has a +4 mouth, how hard is it to sunder (break) a weapon? I read the book,a nd it is a lil confusin.

Here's my take:
1) attack the weapon
2) oposed attack rolls
3) roll damage to see if you overcame hardness and HP

so how would this work for a bow? the DM rules that since the bow is not a melee weapon, it does not get a opposed attack roll-a nd so the dmaage was almost guaranteed...the bow (cost 50,000gp) snapped like a twig in the wind.

please help and explain it to me...

thanks a bunch

 

[Rybaer]

Though I couldn't quote any rules off the top of my head, I would most certainly allow the bow-wielder an opposed roll. They are still fully capable of moving the bow out of the way of the sundering attack or at least fovorably changing the angle of attack to spare it from being broken.

Now, if it actually connects, I can see there being a good chance of it breaking...

 

[hong]

A bow in melee combat is essentially a big wooden (or composite) stick. I would use the "attack an object" rules, as opposed to the sundering rules. Basically the defender gets an AoO (which doesn't apply in this case because you're not using a melee weapon), then the attacker makes an attack roll against AC 10 + your Dex mod + your deflection bonus to AC + 5.

As a +4 bow, it would need a +4 or better weapon to damage it; if the cat-thing had DR X/+4, then it could bite through your bow. I find this last bit unlikely though, given that precious few creatures in the MM have DR that needs more than +3 to negate. I think your DM just got annoyed at your super-rogue.

Moral of the story: don't annoy the DM.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Those metal cats are specifically designed to destroy magic weapons. They are nasty.

Basic Rule is this, just don't get a weapon near them, if you do, it's gone no if's and's or buts.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

As a +4 bow, it would need a +4 or better weapon to damage it; if the cat-thing had DR X/+4, then it could bite through your bow. I find this last bit unlikely though, given that precious few creatures in the MM have DR that needs more than +3 to negate. I think your DM just got annoyed at your super-rogue.

Moral of the story: don't annoy the DM.

Looking at the adventure, they have DR20/+4

And they get +4 to rolls for sundering items, and they deal double damage to items, and they can sence magic items at 120 feet, they know how powerful the item is, and will alway try to eat powerful magic items.

So no, not a case of Mad DM, just don't play Lord of the Iron Fortress if you love your items.

 

[hong]

So no, not a case of Mad DM, just don't play Lord of the Iron Fortress if you love your items.

These item-destroying specials always irk me for some reason. If you don't want your PCs to have powerful items, you don't give them out in the first place. Setting out to destroy them after the fact strikes me as vindictive.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The Easily Sundered Bow

When you attempt to sunder a bow, the archer is definitely allowed an opposed attack roll. However, since he's attempting to use the bow as a melee weapon, he suffers the -4 non-proficiency penalty. If his roll (with penalty) exceeds his foe's, the archer's weapon is safe. If it doesn't, the bow's low hp and hardness mean it's most likely toast.

Though it's really easy to sunder a bow, this seems balanced to me by the fact that an archer can attack a melee combatant from 120' away.

 

[pontus]

I agree with hong. There's no opposed roll for destroying bows.

 

[durath]

I got a couple of issues with saying that a bow wouldn't get an opposed attack role to avoid being sundered.

PHB p.136 under striking a weapon:You can use a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

Issue #1. Since when is a bite attack a slashing or bludgeoning attack? Biting I believe, is piercing damage.

Issue #2. NOwhere in the above text does it differentiate between melee and ranged weapons in regards to the weapon being sundered. It only states that you must use a melee weapon to attempt the sunder.

When you attempt to sunder a bow, the archer is definitely allowed an opposed attack roll. However, since he's attempting to use the bow as a melee weapon, he suffers the -4 non-proficiency penalty. If his roll (with penalty) exceeds his foe's, the archer's weapon is safe. If it doesn't, the bow's low hp and hardness mean it's most likely toast.

This is exactly correct. Anything can be used as weapon. If it is not intended to be a weapon or is misused(such as a bow being used in melee) then the wielder suffers a -4 to the attack role.

Case in point. PHB. p97 under the arrows description.

An arrow used as a melee weapon is tiny and deals 1d4 points of piercing damage(x2 crit). Since it is not designed for this use, all characters are treated as not proficient with it and thus suffer a -4 penalty on thier attack roles.

If an arrow can be used as a makeshift dagger I see no reason why a bow couldn't be used as a makeshift staff or club.

Now granted most of the time the bow is just going to broken by a competant melee combatant(those cat things certainly qualify). But to say that a bow recieves no opposed attack role is just flat out wrong.

 

[pontus]

Issue #1. Since when is a bite attack a slashing or bludgeoning attack? Biting I believe, is piercing damage.

Natural weapons frequently deal more than one kind of damage.

But to say that a bow recieves no opposed attack role is just flat out wrong.

Maybe. But that's what it says in the FAQ.