Sundering (I'm want to make sure I understand)

[Snowy]

Right, I have a character in the game I run/have just started to run, who has expressed interest in the improved sunder feat - this in its self is fine.

However I have not really used the sunder rules before and want to make sure I know how they run.

It also seems to me from the description and with little experience that it seems far easier at higher levels to break a sword rather than an adventurer which doesn't seem right. Is this true? or is it solved by a cunning quirk in the rules that I have missed.

Basically trying to be a good well prepared DM and make sure that I know of any problems that will crop up (hes an elf scout with a great axe and a 16 strength, if anyone wants that information, he has dodge mobility and wpn prof great axe intending to take spring attack at 6th level).

Is sunder fine as is? or do I need to start looking in the 3rd forum

 

[glass]

The problem with sunder, from the players' POV, is that they don't get the loot afterwards to use or sell if they have broken it. So I strongly suspect that your PC's use of the feat will be self-regulating!


glass.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It can be easier, at high levels, to break a sword than to break an adventurer. That might be okay, though: "Steel is weak. Flesh is strong. That is the Riddle of Steel."

Remember that magic weapons get +2 Hardness and +10 Hit Points per plus, so a +5 Longsword has Hardness 20 and 55 hit points. A +5 Adamantine Longsword has Hardness 30 and 57 hit points.

 

[pbd]

The real brokenness of Improved Sunder comes when you use it in conjunction with an adamantine weapon. You ignore hardness, so that the +5 longsword still has 55 HP, but NO hardness (effectively).

Yeah, I just looked at it and realizd my mistake,; adamantium ignors hardness less than 20, so the +5 longsword would get its hardness.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, I just looked at it and realizd my mistake,; adamantium ignors hardness less than 20, so the +5 longsword would get its hardness.

Yep. So the +4 Longsword is totally screwed.

 

[Snowy]

I can relatively easily control access to adamantine or even remove it from existence - so far they haven't seen or heard of any and the starting guidlines were no metal armour try and limit yourselves to woodsy, wood leaf, bark etc equipment.

 

[Vorput]

I can relatively easily control access to adamantine or even remove it from existence - so far they haven't seen or heard of any and the starting guidlines were no metal armour try and limit yourselves to woodsy, wood leaf, bark etc equipment.

Or just make it very rare... un-buyable, that kind of thing.

You could drop it too, but the flavor of adamantine has always attracted me.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

The real brokenness of Improved Sunder comes when you use it in conjunction with an adamantine weapon. You ignore hardness, so that the +5 longsword still has 55 HP, but NO hardness (effectively).

Yeah, I just looked at it and realizd my mistake,; adamantium ignors hardness less than 20, so the +5 longsword would get its hardness.

One thing that's been over looked is that a magic weapon or shield cannot be sundered by a weapon with a lesser enhancement bonus than it's own.

(Which is why my Paladin's Adamantine Greatsword is also a Shatterspike weapon. )

Jack

 

[Infiniti2000]

One thing that's been over looked is that a magic weapon or shield cannot be sundered by a weapon with a lesser enhancement bonus than it's own.

It's easy to overlook 3.0 rules when discussing 3.5 rules.

 

[Nail]

It's easy to overlook 3.0 rules when discussing 3.5 rules.

Has that been Errata'd?

The SRD says: "Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. "