Sundering Too Easy

[Drew]

Please feel free to point me to threads where this has already been dicussed. Does it seem to anyone else that sundering is far too easy?

With an adamantine weapon (ignores hardness less than 20), and Improved Sunder, all I have to do is beat my opponent's attack roll once to have a very solid chance of ruining his weapon. I could take my adamantine +1 longsword, and fairly easily summon any +5 weapon the DM was unlucky enough to hand out to the bad guys. This is fine as an occasional thing, but what's to stop a PC from doing this time after time after time until the poor DM sends nothing at you but rust monsters and monks?

 

[Crothian]

You are right, but in many camapigns monsters don't use weapons. A Sunder specialist is going to be in trouble verse a dragon for instance. Also, the PC is destroying potential loot. And why that doesn't bother me, many people on the boards think that is next to sacrilidge.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is fine as an occasional thing, but what's to stop a PC from doing this time after time after time until the poor DM sends nothing at you but rust monsters and monks?

The fact that it will greatly diminish the treasure you receive. However, what's to stop a DM from doing it? A similar idea. On the other hand, that +5 weapon has +50 hit points, which makes it much more difficult to sunder.

Is sundering still easy? Probably, yes. Too easy? I'm not sure.

 

[Victim]

You cripple yourself because you're destroying the enemy's treasure. That +5 sword you break might fit pretty nicely in your hands. Also, make sure you check the errata - I think each plus on a weapon is now worth +5 HP in addition to hardness.

Most monster type foes have little need for weapons. An enemy who also has an adamantine weapon will have the extra hardness helping him out.

 

[werk]

I think the key here is the adamantine weapon, which is pretty much a weapon-breaker material (+3000gp per weapon) This is what is making sunder 'too easy' for you.

Yes, if you use the special material designed to ignore hardness, you are much better at breaking stuff.

If we just examine sunder...
AoO (moot because of improved sunder feat)
Opposed attack roll. This could be a stopper, because you have to hit higher than your opponent, but again, the player will probably win most of time do to higher BAB and cheese.
If you win, you deal damage to the weapon, etc.

Longsword is hardness 10 and HP 5, so the question is, how often can you do 15 points of damage with a single attack?

Longsword vs longsword you aren't going to be breaking anything without a crit or +7 Str bonus to damage. And I don't know if I'd allow crits on weapons/objects because it is an opposed roll, not an attack roll against AC.

So what you are saying is that I should send a Frost Giant Fighter with improved sunder, and an adamantine greatsword against my party...then watch them cry?

I think sunder is under utilized too, but I think they call that strategy.

 

[Drew]

I think the key here is the adamantine weapon, which is pretty much a weapon-breaker material (+3000gp per weapon) This is what is making sunder 'too easy' for you.

3,000gp is well within the reach of all but the lowest level PCs.

Yes, if you use the special material designed to ignore hardness, you are much better at breaking stuff.

Why wouldn't every PC who actually planned to sunder get an adamantine weapon? In my opinion, its foolish to examine the PC that might try for a sunder on rare occasions (when trying to destroy the evil intelligent sword that has fallen into enemy hands, for example). The problem comes when, as a DM, you have a player sundering EVERYTHING.

So what you are saying is that I should send a Frost Giant Fighter with improved sunder, and an adamantine greatsword against my party...then watch them cry?

That would be fine ONCE. Can you imagine how much fun that would be for them EVERY session? Now imagine that you're the DM, and the players are doing the weapon breaking.

I think sunder is under utilized too, but I think they call that strategy.

Er...I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that sunder is under utilized by most D&D groups. But really, why? In a game that relies so heavily on magic equipment for both character power and encounter balance, shouldn't most groups be sundering?

Imagine a party of 4 10th level characters vs a 12th level fighter. They can either hit him a number of times to wear away his 80 HP, or they can strike his weapon once and have a really good chance of completely and permanantly disarming him. In a game like D&D, said villian potentially loses a great deal of his power (and effective CR) because of a single feat and a 3000gp item property?

 

[Philip]

Imagine a party of 4 10th level characters vs a 12th level fighter. They can either hit him a number of times to wear away his 80 HP, or they can strike his weapon once and have a really good chance of completely and permanantly disarming him. In a game like D&D, said villian potentially loses a great deal of his power (and effective CR) because of a single feat and a 3000gp item property?

Said 12th level fighter would probably have a bigger problem with the cleric or wizard casting hold person. He will not potentially lose a great deal of his power when he fails the Will save, he will be practically dead.

Said 12th lvl fighter (fighting with a magic weapon, or else the benefit of sundering would be low) would have a decent chance to win to opposed attack roll against a lower level PC fighter.

 

[Philip]

Please feel free to point me to threads where this has already been dicussed. Does it seem to anyone else that sundering is far too easy?

Sundering is not too easy. The problem that people have with Sundering is that it's like a save or die spell when it works. 90% of the time Sundering does you no good, but when it finally comes through, it can decide a battle right then and there.

This means the strength of Sunder lies in its psychological power, and not its actual utility. A similar example: people don't notice when you roll a 15 16 and a 17 and hit your opponent three times in a row. They do notice when you miss twice and then roll a 20 and crit for triple damage on your third hit. Net effect is the same, only the crit is psychologically more noticable.

I made an analysis of the utility of Sunder in a thread some time ago, but since I don't have a search function....

 

[werk]

Er...I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that sunder is under utilized by most D&D groups.

Right, I'm not arguing, just laying it all out. I think we're in pretty much total agreement. Sunder is pretty easy if you build your character to do it.

So to sum up:
Sunder alone - bleh
Sunder with Imp sunder feat - eh
Sunder with feat and adamantine weapon - bang

I also think it's very dependent on your ability to roll higher attacks than your opponent.
In your example, the 10th level attackers are going to have trouble besting the fighter's attack roll unless they are cheesed out. I would think it works better when you are fighting weaker enemies.


I think my first move as a sundering character would be to go for any opposing cleric's focus, then big weapons. I wish you could ranged sunder...


Philip, you can buy the search function ;p

 

[Goolpsy]

Im against most 3.5 rules soo... i dont know if they've changed anything but..

In 3.0 you cant sunder a weapon with a higher Magic bonus
= +5 sword > +1 adamatine, +5 sword > +1holy keen flaming burst.
Simply because it holds more power in the blade as are more difficult to kill

Another thing, Why did they even change adamantine to ignore hardness below 20?

Sundering isn't that powerful, first of all, dont send npc only at the players... "try sundering a kraken".. another thing is, Why use a broken ruleset like 3.5 is ..?