The problem of sundering

[Corinth]

Says who? Not in my campaigns.

Says the Rules As Written. What you do in your campaign is totally and utterly irrelevant when talking about the game in general.

More, generally, item dependence is a huge weakness of 3.X DnD. It makes the game too much about equipment and not enough about the player. This is not exactly a new argument. Lots of folk have been houseruling 3.X to put the power in the PC's heart, and not literally in his hands, for years.

D&D always was, is now, and ever shall be noted for item dependence. Gear matters, like it or not; it makes bad characters passable and good characters shine like demigods. There is no way to make a popular game like D&D where gear doesn't matter; best to get over it, embrace it and make the most of it.

 

[Mark CMG]

There is no way to make a popular game like D&D where gear doesn't matter

Interesting stance. I need to start a new thread to explore this.

 

[James McMurray]

If the DM is a bad DM, blame the DM.

It doesn't necesarily take a bad DM to miss the gear part of the CR systems. I'd actually be surprised if most DMs could tell you exactly what gear each PC had, much less the total value of that gear, assuming it wasn't a group where trust is an issue.

 

[Crothian]

It doesn't necesarily take a bad DM to miss the gear part of the CR systems. I'd actually be surprised if most DMs could tell you exactly what gear each PC had, much less the total value of that gear, assuming it wasn't a group where trust is an issue.

I don't need to know exactly what they have or the total worth of it and neither is what is being talked about. What is being talked about is after seeing the fighter's main weapon get destroyed and expecting the fighter to be unhindered by it would make a bad DM.

 

[James McMurray]

Perhaps. It depends on the situation. If the GM is running a published adventure and the party fights earth elementals, he may assume that the rest of the adventure knows some weapons are gone and has factored it in. He may know the fighter is going to be hindered, but consider it a part of the game plan, not knowing that the guy that wrote the adventure is very anti-sunder and forgot that the elementals have Improved sunder when he was writing it.

Or he could be a bad GM.

 

[Slife]

We allow for reforging at a reduced cost.

It's in the rules. Anyone with the feats can reforge magic items for half price.



Of course, sundering is really a bad move. Why not have the rogue use Sleight of Hand instead? It's only a static DC 20 check, which a decent rogue should be able to make in his sleep. You get the item and don't have to worry about destroying loot.

Lesse. For a 5th level rogue (I'm sure this could be done better, but AFB).
8 ranks + 2(masterwork tool) +3 (skill focus) + 4 (18 dex) +2 (synergy with bluff)
+19 bonus. You make the check on a natural 1. Sure, they might notice that you now have their +4 vorpal flaming sword of frostburst, but what are they going to do about it?

And even better, imagine if they don't notice their weapon is gone.

 

[James McMurray]

Where is the reforging cost?

Sleight of Hand: yeah, sure... go for it. Not in our group though. It's not called Disarm, the skill. It's called Sleight of Hand.

 

[Razz]

Razz, in my 3.5e PHB, the last line in the Sunder description (page 158, above "Throw Splash Weapon") gives the no-sundering-armour rule.

Cheers!

Oh crap, it is there. I never noticed that line above it no matter how many times I read through it. That's strange.

 

[the Jester]

The player sucks it up and gets back to adventuring.

Yep.

One of the only things that I like about the abundance of magic items in 3.x dnd is that losing the magic sword isn't a huge blow that takes twenty sessions to recover from, as it might have in 1e or 2e. I'm of the opinion that the prevalence of magic items almost requires a certain amount of item-destroying stuff to balance it- thus, sundering, green slime, rust monsters, disenchanters, spellgaunts, disjunctions, etc. But then, I play rough.

A question for those of you with the so-called 'gentlemens agreement' with your players not to sunder: when they encounter creatures that normally (off the shelf) have Improved Sunder, do you swap the feat out?

 

[William drake]

So the party fighter's magic sword, that he's spent about half his gold on, gets destroyed. Maybe by a blackguard, or a rust monster or a nightwalker or some such.

What happens after that? The PC's effectiveness has been greatly diminished. Does he get a new sword out of party funds? Do the other PCs give him a bigger share of loot until they all have similar magic item values again? Does the GM give him a shiny new sword? Or should he have relied on Greater Magic Weapon like the gish and the cleric?

%$#^& happens....roll with it. And, the DM shouldn't have broken the guys sword or w/e unless he knew he could handle it. IF you've got a player that really really really gets into his character, why would you break the one thing that would make him want to quit? There are alot of other things you could do....steal it..make it so he has to come after it.

And, unless the party feels they should, they dont really owe him...Itd be nice, but they dont have to do anything.

Another thing...how offten should weapons be getting broken...how hard is it played up in the games to really damage a sword? If the rules arnt real enough, torc them up so that its not every other game that the characters have to find new weapons. (Dont know if thats whats going on, just came to me now.)