Sundering worn objects (like belt pouches)

[Puderzo]

Have I missed some crucial rule on this, or is it rediculously easy to destroy any and all equipment of an opponent (excluding worn armor, carried shields and wielded weapons)?

If I for example want to sunder the evil (level 5, 50, 500 or whatever, doesn't matter) fighter's Belt Pouch of Holding, I have to hit a laughingly low AC of 10 + wearer's DEX + item's size mod, which translates into something like 10 + 3 (assuming a 16 dex) + 4 (diminutive size) = 17.

Being made of leather, it has a hardness of 2 and 5 hit points (assuming a really thick pouch of 1 inch thickness). Viola, after dealing 7 points of damage, the pouch is ruined, and its contents are lost forever. There goes his pouch.. ..or scabbard, or Girdle of Giant Strength, or Hewards Handy Haversack, or Boots of Flying, or Hat of Disguise, or mundane backpack (which is size Tiny or perhaps even Small and therefore even easier to hit), or whatever else I target.. (Oh, yeah, I have of course taken the Improved Sunder feat, so he doesn't get to do squat about it)

The same goes for every single magical (or nonmagical of course) item which isn't stored safely away in the Reinforced Adamantium Backpack of Holding..

Luckily I was aiming for his unprotected belt pouch, instead of for example his well-protected shield, because if I had, on the other hand, tried doing the same to his shield, he would have got an opposed attack roll, and easily swatted my attacking blade away.

Is this really wrong..or am I wrong here and just blind?

 

[sledged]

What do the rules say about what constitutes as being protected? I would think anything you're opponent is holding or wearing would be considered protected. Otherwise it probably works just as you described it. Serves your opponent right leaving it exposed.

 

[mirivor]

No, you are right. Kind of stupid, huh? Of course, the fighter can obviously return the favor. Bar that, how about some poor schmuck with a heavily enchanted bow? "Oh, look! Your 200,000 GP bow was just shattered by a goblin...."

I would probably rule that this required an opposed attack roll, just as when sundering a weapon. See, IMO, a warrior is deflecting blades form his body in general, thus he should receive the full benefit of his melee prowess, regardless of what you are trying to strike. This rule concerning worn or carried objects except weapons, shields, etc. makes it sound like the fighter is a whirlwind of destruction.... unless you aim for his beltpouch. In that case, he stands stock still while you try an ax his various possessions..... kind of stupid, to me. Later!

 

[hong]

The sundering rules are kinda dumb. Personally, I've just banned (well, heavily discouraged) random sundering in my game.

 

[Amal Shukup]

I am NOT, apparently, backed up by the RAW here, but I would definitely adjudicate that attacking a carried or worn object should require the attacker to overcome several other modifiers to AC as well:

Dodge - Represents character actively protecting his person
Deflection - Magical field protects character, including possesions IMHO
Haste - Character plus all his stuff now going a bit faster
Shield - Thing is physically interposed between attack and the stuff.​

One could streamline this a bit and simply suggest that any modifier that applies to the Character's Touch AC should apply equally to the AC of a worn or carried object (as well as it's own size mods etc.). This would eliminate Shield from the list above (although I've never really liked that exclusion).

I don't see how it can be workable otherwise - too easy to destroy possesions. Edit: although, attacking a worn or carried object still provokes an AOO, so the defender isn't 'just standing there'.

Simply preventing the tactic through application of rule zero takes away PC options, though, and I just plain dislike doing that.

A'Mal

 

[Len]

Simply preventing the tactic through application of rule zero takes away PC options, though, and I just plain dislike doing that.

But the PCs usually deny themselves that option anyway, because anything sundered is no longer loot. The villains have no such compunctions (they never seem to expect to get any loot from the party), so sundering magical items is in practice only done against the PCs.

 

[Darklone]

Best Sunder houserule I've ever seen: Opposed attack roll, the losers weapon gets damaged. So be careful if you want to use it.

 

[Tyrol]

I am NOT, apparently, backed up by the RAW here, but I would definitely adjudicate that attacking a carried or worn object should require the attacker to overcome several other modifiers to AC as well:

Dodge - Represents character actively protecting his person
Deflection - Magical field protects character, including possesions IMHO
Haste - Character plus all his stuff now going a bit faster
Shield - Thing is physically interposed between attack and the stuff.​

One could streamline this a bit and simply suggest that any modifier that applies to the Character's Touch AC should apply equally to the AC of a worn or carried object (as well as it's own size mods etc.). This would eliminate Shield from the list above (although I've never really liked that exclusion).

I don't see how it can be workable otherwise - too easy to destroy possesions. Edit: although, attacking a worn or carried object still provokes an AOO, so the defender isn't 'just standing there'.

Simply preventing the tactic through application of rule zero takes away PC options, though, and I just plain dislike doing that.

A'Mal

I could see how a character would be actively using his shield to try and stop ANY swing that came towards him (no matter where that swing is aiming for - to an item on his belt, his groin, his backpack, his head, wherever, he is going to try and block it with his shield), and thus I can see how a shield bonus might be appropriate against a sunder attack.

Course, this would be house rules.

Tyrol

 

[Vahktang]

Best Sunder houserule I've ever seen: Opposed attack roll, the losers weapon gets damaged. So be careful if you want to use it.

Automatically gets damaged?
Or an AOO on the weapon?

'sides, even if you do do opposed rolls, the sunderer still gets +4 on his to hit.
He has a better chance to sunder than to hit normal.

Comments?

More later,

Vahktang