Sundering Too Easy

[Shin Okada]

Area effect is not specifically targeting a certain item. Sunder is an act to specifically target a certain item and try to destroy it. I don't see much meaning on comparing those two cases.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I can't imagine going back to the 1e (or was it 2e) methods, with those charts of saving throws. I used that for a little while and lightning bolt become the most feared spell ever. The PCs were storing all their equipment inside ceramic jars inside wood boxes inside leather satchels, etc. It slowed combat down to a snail's pace. It was terrible. The 3.x rule of the nat. 1 that might destroy an item is much better. If anything, I would get rid of it entirely, but I would certainly not recommend rolling for all your equipment.

 

[two]

I was under the impression that the "attack an object" option could also be used with ranged attack spells, for example an acid arrow or whatever, allowing you to destroy/sunder stuff at range with spells.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Area effect is not specifically targeting a certain item. Sunder is an act to specifically target a certain item and try to destroy it. I don't see much meaning on comparing those two cases.

Thats not the point though. The point is that a 1st level warrior can destroy magic items relatively easily with Sunder, while the furnace-hot breath of the elder wyrm dragon cannot.

Either the rules should support easy destruction of magic items or not. Some uniformity of approach would be better (after all uniformity of approach has been the watchword in so many other areas).

FWIW I think the most sensible approach would have been to use massive damage threshold for magic items - either a flat 50 or perhaps halved for vulnerable types (paper & cloth against fire? glass against sonic?). An alternative would be to give magic items a save whenever an attempt is made to sunder them - pass their save and you don't bother rolling for the sunder damage. The precise mechanism isn't important. It is just peculiar that they didn't bother to harmonise things.


Cheers

 

[Shin Okada]

Thats not the point though. The point is that a 1st level warrior can destroy magic items relatively easily with Sunder, while the furnace-hot breath of the elder wyrm dragon cannot.

Either the rules should support easy destruction of magic items or not. Some uniformity of approach would be better (after all uniformity of approach has been the watchword in so many other areas).

I think you are misunderstanding the basic concept behind 3.Xe rules.

Not just magic items, but basically, no worn items are destroyed by area attacks. On the other hand, unattended items are , magic or not, easily destroyed by area attacks.

In 3.Xe, basically, only HP of characters and creatures are reduced by normal attacks and normal area attacks. You don't need care about worn items, character's limbs, eyes, etc., unless someone makes a special attack to target such things. This structure is making current D&D simple enough while giving options to simulate rare occasions.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

IME, it's not really too bad... In my last campaign, one PC had an adamantine Greatsword, Power attack and Combat Brute (?) - anyway the feat that lets you cleave into target after a successful sunder.

After an initial 'Aaagh' factor I found it pretty easy to deal with:

All the bad guys carried backup weapons - which makes sense, just hadn't previously bothered with it.

Monks and most monsters generally aren't affected.

It's not that hard to find weapons with a hardness over 20 - either metal & +5, adamantine or made up some other strange materials. Threw one or two of those in very occasionally, where the bad guy would be a walkover without a weapon! Mostly just let the PC show his skill off most of the time.

Not sure if it's a house rule, but we agreed that any + to a weapon should add hit points and hardness - made sense to us and didn't seem to upset the game.


Certainly less of a shock to the game than some rules - 3.5 Druids, for example.

 

[Shin Okada]

Dwarvencraft items (in Races of Stone) has +2 hardness and +10 hp. This is added in addition to the bonuses from magical enhancements. Thus, a +4 dwarvencraft cold iron sword has hardness of 20. This helps, too.

 

[Philip]

Thats not the point though. The point is that a 1st level warrior can destroy magic items relatively easily with Sunder, while the furnace-hot breath of the elder wyrm dragon cannot.

It is also because a 200 hit point damage fire breath, which would be enough to burn a man to a crisp 10 times over, is not actually physically suffered by the character in question. His hit points also represent luck, the ability to escape the worst of the fire etc.

If the 200 hit point fire breath does kill the character, you could always rule that since the character is dead, all his belongings are now objects and also suffer this damage.

A furnace hot breath does destroy items easily, but only when unattended.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think you are misunderstanding the basic concept behind 3.Xe rules.

Not just magic items, but basically, no worn items are destroyed by area attacks. On the other hand, unattended items are , magic or not, easily destroyed by area attacks.

On the contrary, I understand the basic concept of the existing rules fine, what I'm attacking is the over-arching concept which lies above and behind this concept: fundamentally there is the idea that PCs of a certain level *should* have a certain amount of wealth/equipment. Stopping area effect spells from destroying equipment willy-nilly removes a certain randomised reduction of equipment across a party which is a "bad" thing in the 3e world - while being an accepted part of earlier editions. This is a 3e "gamist"(?) rule which flys in the face of the simple logic which used to be used in earlier editions.

It is in the light of that that Sunder being easily able to destroy items (magical or nonmagical) seems out of place - having denied the ability to destroy equipment by the, er, traditional D&D method, they then introduce a new method of doing it. Doesn't really make sense.

Regards

 

[frankthedm]

fail a save by 5 or more and exposed items vulnerable to the element get thier saves.

10 or more, all equipment.

unfortunatly it still won't work well with a balance system that relies on characters wearing a country's GNP in magic items and sucking down potions like they were vials of crack cocaine.