Sundering? Underrated?

[Corinth]

I don't have a problem with using Sunder on an enemy's weapon. No treasure is more important than any character's life.

 

[iwatt]

I hate sundering in general.

Its a combat manuever that noone would try without the feats. Yet with the right feats it can become extraordinarily powerful.

I beg to differ. My Dwarf Paladin uses these combat maneuevrs all the time without the feat (I include Disarm and trip). It helps that he has an extremely high AC and a lot of hps, so he doesn't suffer that much from AoOs. Of course, he sunders the evil clerics mace, not the Frost Giants Greatsword.

 

[shilsen]

Well...it's exceptionally powerful against most PCs. That's a problem.

I fail to see the problem

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I fail to see the problem

Joking aside, I think the problem is that it can easily seem metagamey.

It is an artifact of the game mechanics that a solid hit on an opponent's weapon or two can be so much more effective than simply hitting the opponent outright.

It is also an artifact of the system that by the time I notice my opponent is going for my prized weapon, it is most likely too late to do anything about at all. In fact, the only countertactic to a sundering opponent is to swap weapons -- which is not really a countertactic so much as conceding defeat on the issue.

Taking this sundering idea to the logical extreme, mooks should not attack PCs for damage at all. Their best hope of defeating the PCs is to attack their stuff and only their stuff. I would note that even arrows are pretty good at damaging cloaks, belts, boots, and other soft goods that are likely to be magical. Destroy the belt and the Bag of Holding with all those lovely scrolls and potions falls to the ground. Compare the AC of the PC's stuff and the typical AC of the PC.

These tactics would be valid and effective means to game the system, but it would not be fun. And I believe it was Nigel of Spinal Tap who said: "It is such a fine line between clever and ...and...stupid."

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would note that even arrows are pretty good at damaging cloaks, belts, boots, and other soft goods that are likely to be magical.

Arguable.

When attempting to break an object, you have two choices: smash it with a weapon or break it with sheer strength.

Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished by the sunder special attack. Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

A bow is a piercing weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In that case, the mooks can just throw hammers. Or use slings. Or possibly even throw swords with significant minuses. Or use flaming arrows, flaming oil, or alchemist fire against flammable targets.

The tactic is still sound, even if simple arrows will not do the job in most cases. Lots of worn gear has a very low hardness and only a modest AC.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Generally sunder is inferior to disarm.

Sunder: Weapon is gone. Potential loss of treasure. May not work on the first hit.

Disarm: Weapon is on the ground or in hand. No loss of treasure. Works on the first hit. Possibility of counter-disarm (not an issue if you're good at disarming).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The problem with Disarm is that if I am so much better than with my favorite weapon then I darn well will pick it up again. In a one-on-one fight that makes Disarm a losing proposition unless you have means of picking up the weapon lying in my square. A very generous DM would let you just reach over and grab it with a MEA, but I would not count on that ruling...

 

[shilsen]

The problem with Disarm is that if I am so much better than with my favorite weapon then I darn well will pick it up again. In a one-on-one fight that makes Disarm a losing proposition unless you have means of picking up the weapon lying in my square. A very generous DM would let you just reach over and grab it with a MEA, but I would not count on that ruling...

Considering that picking up one's weapon when disarmed takes a move action, draws an AoO and prevents one from making full attacks, I'd say it's far from a losing proposition.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Considering that picking up one's weapon when disarmed takes a move action, draws an AoO and prevents one from making full attacks, I'd say it's far from a losing proposition.

It's also why the Disarmer should have a buddy who can Bull Rush the opponent out of the square when the weapon drops. No weapon? No AoO...

And a 75% chance that the AoO the Disarmer gets on the opponent won't hit the Bull Rusher instead Decent odds!

-Hyp.