Sundering Too Easy

[Shin Okada]

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

So, every so often your villains sunder PCs' equipment? Reading this thread, I have a feeling that the majority of the DMs are regarding it to be not that much a popular (or effective) tactics. In most cases, reducing hp is far much better for winning a battle. Remember, basically, PCs' gear will not be broken unless opponent choose to sunder it.

Also, "compensating" the amount of appropriate gear is the job of DM. If you as a DM happen to destroy PCs' gears often, regardless of the method (you may toss a horde of Rust Monsters, let PCs pass a portal which removes all of their gears), try to give PCs more gears and balance for it. Problem solved.

 

[S'mon]

Wealth-by-level is a guideline for the GM, not an entitlement for the players!

 

[S'mon]

e.g. Wham! The Red Dragon breaths for 200 points fire damage! Then there is a 5% chance that each target might have to make a saving throw for 1(!) of his magic items. Very CRPG - kills the targets and all his goods appear in a heap where his cremated body lay. Makes the MM wording about red dragons being reluctant to use their breath weapon because it doesn't want to destroy the treasure sound a bit strange.

Well, obviously, if the character is dead, the items are unattended & they all take damage...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also, "compensating" the amount of appropriate gear is the job of DM.

I agree entirely. The fact that PC wealth is under the control of the DM should have made the whole "destruction of items" a non-issue, and let it continue as per the old days (albeit in a streamlined form). The rust monsters that you bring up are an excellent point.

In fact random destruction of items is arguably kinder - it is just 'collatoral damage', whereas if a treasured magic item is directly targetted by Sunder (or rust monsters, or Disjunction) there may be more of a sense of "the DMs out to get me". Not in your campaign or my campaign of course, since we are all sensible people. Just in, y'know, other peoples campaigns

From a story point of view one of the good things about dragons destroying lots of equipment it means that as DM I can justify a bigger hoard for the party once they've defeated it

Cheers

 

[S'mon]

Hi PS - nice point about the dragon.

I agree that having NPC target PC's gear can seem unfair if it's a suboptimal tactic from the NPC's own POV - players don't like GMs metagaming any more than GMs like players metagaming. So IMC it's rare that NPCs will sunder, unless perhaps it's an NPC strike team who are under explicit orders to destroy the hero's uber-sword. This can be realistic, even if it gets the NPCs killed - in the Falklands War the Argentine pilots were under strict orders not to attack the RAF Harriers, only the British ships. This was highly suboptimal from the Argentine pilot's own POV in terms of staying alive, but presumably made sense to their commanders, who only cared about sinking the ships.

 

[werk]

From a story point of view one of the good things about dragons destroying lots of equipment it means that as DM I can justify a bigger hoard for the party once they've defeated it

Where did the dragon get the big horde if he easily destroys everything his foes have?

Yeah, yeah, I know...

I personally think there should be an INT requirement on Imp. Sunder, trip, disarm, etc...anything requiring tactics. Seems odd to me that a base Troll (INT~6)would have the sense to attack their foes' weapons/armor/etc.

Mechanics, gotta love em.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree that sunder can be very problimatic for a DM, but fortunately no players I've had in 3rd edition have yet realized just how problimatic. Part of that is that most of the dangerous monsters don't use weapons. Another part of that is that admantium weapons don't just grow on trees in my campaigns.

If it started becoming a problem, I think I would do the following:

1) Make sure the bad guys had backup melee weapons - if only daggers and such.
2) If the PC's start gaining access to adamantium weapons, make sure that thier peer level foes do to.
3) I already have a couple homebrew feats that limit the effectiveness of sunder, and peer level NPC's would likely have one or more such feats.
4) Last resort, change the rules such that adamantium ignored a lesser ammount of an objects hardness.

I'm very open about destroying party treasure, having grown up under 1st edition rules where a failed saving throw vs. dragon breath would slag or incinerate half of what you owned (but it was ok because a failed saving throw vs. dragon breath likely meant you were dead anyway). I certainly would not suggest making the DC's for saving throws for items to be as high in 1st edition, because the PC's saving throws are easier now as well, but I wouldn't mind experimenting with a more brutal system in 3rd edition. Exactly how it would work, I'm not sure, but I do feel that the current system makes equipment maybe too durable.

Maybe make every exposed item make the PC's saving throw or else take damage equal to the attack.

The current system makes item destruction so rare that PC's feel like you are out to get them whenever they lose an item rather than feeling as if they've lost some disposable resource. Unique treasures (especially those that are plot devices) can and should be pretty well be preemptively protected by the DM at creation time with properties like enhanced saves, enhanced hardness, immunity to certain forms of attack, enhanced hit points and such as needed. The other stuff should have no more sentimental attachment than a potion IMO. Many high level campaigns I've known that don't use harsh item destruction rules end up with huge stockpiles of low level magical treasure anyway. It's not like there isn't more where it came from.

 

[Philip]

4) Last resort, change the rules such that adamantium ignored a lesser ammount of an objects hardness.

Done that immediately when I saw the stupid adamantine rule. Yeah sure, adamantine cuts as easily to hard rock as a knife through hot butter.... NOT!

IMC adamantine weapons ignore half the hardness of objects, so Hardness 8 would be Hardness 4 vs. an adamantine weapon. Easy, balanced, believable.

 

[HeavyG]

I think my DM has the same rule, Philip.

Of course, I wouldn't know for sure since nobody has ever tried to sunder in our group.

 

[moritheil]

I don't really get what the big deal is.

As a DM, if my group went sunder-happy, I would simply ensure that 90% of their treasure allocation was in the forms of weapons in enemy hands, and then let them decide whether or not to continue abusing sunder.

It makes sense, too, if you mostly have enemy NPC fighters as the enemies - why wouldn't they spend the bulk of their money on decent weapons?