The problem of sundering

[Raven Crowking]

He should suck it up, and also he should learn that spending half your cash on your weapon is extremely foolish, as there are many effects that instantly destroy weapons, such as rust monsters and black puddings.

QF-ever-lovin'-T

 

[DragonShadow]

My DMing policy is that I don't sunder as long as the PCs don't. And this is laid out from the start. Sunder was one of the few things from 3x that I hate.

The glorious unwritten rule. Sundering never comes up in games I run, and hopefully never (knock wood) in games I play in as well.


I find that most people don't bother Sundering anyway, it's another section of rules to worry about and opens up horrible possibilities of all your stuff breaking.

Theoretically speaking, however, if a foe sunders my weapon (or a party members weapon) and we then kill him...well, the the sundered goes the sunderer's weapon.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's great unless your GM is a stickler for CRs, which all assume you have your gear fro your level. TPKs can flow like water when GMs ignore the gear aspect of the CR system.

The impact of gear on CR-- where impact is measured in likelihood of TPK-- is largely boolean. You either have a magic (DR-proof) weapon or not; a ghost touch weapon or not. That kind of thing.

The CR system is mostly oblivious to "My campaign runs 35% behind/above the suggested wealth-by-level guidelines..."

The DM doesn't really need to concern himself with the exact CR impact that the sword's loss has on the fighter other than those few boolean decisions.

For the vast majority of typical encounters, a fighter with a +3 sword, or without-- indeed, a fighter of level-X with level-X appropriate sword, or without-- is roughly equivalent, and the loss is quite safely hand-waved by the DM. The addition of the sword to the overall CR of the fighter is a negligible portion of his total CR.

This is not to say that the loss of a fighter's sword is a negligible portion of his panache. As either a DM or a PC, I'd be much more concerned about the sword's loss from a story perspective than a mechanics perspective.

 

[James McMurray]

The CR system is mostly oblivious to "My campaign runs 35% behind/above the suggested wealth-by-level guidelines..."

Are you saying the CR system doesn't care about your gear except in terms of whether you can bypass DR?

 

[Midknightsun]

I've used sundering now and then. I agree its a viable tactic, if not overused. I don't go out of my way to sunder some favored weapon focused fighters greatest toy from his hands, but its going to happen. The bad guys don't always care about your stuff. Sometimes they just want you dead, or at least diminished. Now do I generally work on a replacement? Eventually. But I'm also not stingy with magic, so said fighter should have a backup to pull them through until they can commission to get a new one made, or find something nice. As a player, I'd roll with this (again, if not overused), so as a DM I see no problem in sometimes attacking the Fighter's prized blade. I also agree with some former posts regarding the intelligence of putting half one's wealth into one weapon, and then expecting INTELLIGENT enemies not to want to remove that edge now and then.

That being said, I do have a player or two who get waaaaaaay too clingy to their stuff, but considering I take good care of my players in the long run, they usually suck it up.

 

[Doug McCrae]

He should suck it up, and also he should learn that spending half your cash on your weapon is extremely foolish, as there are many effects that instantly destroy weapons, such as rust monsters and black puddings.

This is true but people just like em. They love their magic swords. Something about a kickass weapon appeals a lot more than a kickass headband.

Do you really want games filled with Greater Magic Weapon-wielding pragmatists?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Are you saying the CR system doesn't care about your gear except in terms of whether you can bypass DR?

DR, as a single example of other of boolean considerations-- yes.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to reduce what I said to that single example.

Whether or not you can bypass DR, whether or not you can hit intangible creatures, whether or not you can fly, whether or not you can X, Y, Z. Fill in the blanks.

Now, if you ask whether the CR system cares whether or not your fighter has spent 8000 gp on:

a) +2 sword
b) +1 sword, +2 full plate, +1 ring of protection
c) 160 potions of cure light wounds
d) 8000 gp worth of ale and whores

... the answer is no. Its powers of discretion are simply not granular enough.

More to the point, there's no possible way to know exactly what that wealth has been spent on, so it is impossible to quantify what effect that wealth has on CR.

Furthermore, the number and type of tangible bonuses you can achieve within the d20 system, within the confines of the wealth guidelines, simply aren't significant indicators of CR. They are most significant at low level, comprising a larger relative portion of total CR.

But then the same is true of most of the boolean factors, as well. By mid to high level they become less of a concern-- their ability to "break your game" is significantly decreased.

Generally speaking, as character level increases, the impact of wealth on CR decreases.

As for the boolean factors, CR doesn't handle them at all, except in terms of "likelihood that they can be mitigated by a certain level."

 

[Tzarevitch]

If a PC's sword or staff or whatever gets Sundered, Rusted, Disjoined, or whatever, he simply takes a 5' step back and pulls out his backup sword (or staff or whatever).

But under the RAW the loss of the magic of a magic item is only really bad if you're fighting creatures that can only be hit by weapons with certain qualities.

And in my game, those are precisely the beings who WILL sunder weapons. My PCs have not yet encountered the rakshasa zakya (fighter-type rakshasa from the Eberron book) in my campaign, with Improved Sunder and an adamantine Shatterspike from the DMG. He also learned enough psionics to take the Focused Sunder feat. His intention was to sunder any piercing weapon that the PCs tried to use on him and let his DR 15/Good and Piercing and high SR do the rest.

Giants in my games will happily sunder any weapon someone uses on them, because they can and it is tactically sound to do so. If the blade crackes with eldrich energy, break it. Make him use a backup.

Even as a PC, we ran into an NPC with a vorpal weapon. After he beheaded a PC with it, I promptly broke it. It made the fight much easier thereafter. His +1 flaming backup was much less scary than the +5 vorpal.

Tzarevitch

 

[molonel]

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?

It completely depends on the party. Roy, in Order of the Stick, had his ancestral weapon shattered and used a nonmagical greatclub for a while. If the weapon is sundered, it can be repaired according to the rules for half of the cost, and gives the party an opportunity to adventure. If they can afford it, and have someplace where they might be able to commission the construction of a new weapon, that might lead into further adventures. The PCs might chip in to help, or the GM might make a different one available.

All of these things, and more, are available options. Which option the party and the DM chooses depends on their preferences.

 

[Tzarevitch]

But is a DM then expected to compensate for the fighter's weakened state? I wouldn't expect the fighter to be unhindered, but I also would expect the PC and party to try to compensate on their own, whether that means changing tactics or running away from some fights. I would not expect the group to think, "well he took out the fighter's main weapon, so he'll either give us something else or he'll play a little soft for a while."

I guess this depends some upon the style of play of each individual group.

I would say it is only a bad DM if the weapon was sundered in an effort to beat the party and "win the game."

Most groups I have run or played with will re-destribute cash to help out someone who lost something critical to item-destruction. After all, if the fighter is the party tank it is in the whole party's best interest to have him do a good job. In the immediate fight however, loss of a critical component of the PCs attack plan forces them to think outside the box. If plan A just got sundered, it may be time for Plan B. Sometimes this may necessitate a retreat.

Note also that melee types are not the only ones vulnerable to sundering. Staves and wands are very easy to sunder. Spell-component pouches are good too as it denies the caster the ability to cast spells with material components unless he has a backup. Potions and scrolls are also extremely easy to sunder if someone risks using one in a fight.

As far as I am concerned the PCs need to anticipate that their enemies are not going to allow them to use their abilities unhindered, and plan accordingly. Nothing personal. Sunder is a viable and efficient tactic of keeping onesself alive. It the PCs choose not do use it that is their own choice. The PCs' enemies absolutely will use it if they are capable of doing do efficiently.

Tzarevitch