The problem of sundering

[James McMurray]

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

I didn't. I just only quoted the part that pertained to my question. Much like now.

We seem to agree on how the CR system works, but disagree on the amount of power lost when a fighter loses his main weapon. Yes, losing a +3 or even +5 weapon isn't much of a drop in power, but most fighters (again, IMX) don't have those weapons. They use special abilities like keen, bane, etc. and augment them with a friendly Greater Magic Weapon at higher levels.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I didn't. I just only quoted the part that pertained to my question. Much like now.

You said this:

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

Words mean things... Use responsibly.

They use special abilities like keen, bane, etc. and augment them with a friendly Greater Magic Weapon at higher levels.

Upper_Krust put the value of each level of PC gear about equal to a feat-- that is, about 20% of the total CR at any level.

In terms of low-magic campaigns, this is significant, because the CR is stripped down across the whole party (and usually in combination with the loss of spellcasting).

The same is not true of a typical D&D party and certainly not true for any single, typical piece of gear.

It certainly will make life tangibly more difficult for the party, but there shouldn't be a significant increase in TPK unless the item lost was a vital factor in a boolean matchup-- in other words, a "trump."

Really, one of the strengths of the CR system is that it is flexible and inspecific enough to absorb this kind of loss within the party and still be a pretty accurate predictor.

Trumps notwithstanding!

It's not so much that the DM shouldn't include Sunder in his arsenal, or even that he needs to curb how often he Sunders-- rather, he needs to be aware of what he is sundering, because sundering an important (and singular) "trump card" definitely can spell TPK.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Highly off-topic, but no frickin' way. Lifting a sheathed weapon is a DC 50 skill check according to the Epic rules. Lifting one that is in someone's hand(s) is, in fact, not lifting according to the RAW; it is a disarm attempt.

Back to topic: IMHO, the real question is whether magic weapons should be tougher. What should win on tradeoff: The Improved Sunder feat (which will be lowered in power if you do this) or preservation of PC wealth?

 

[James McMurray]

Highly off-topic, but no frickin' way. Lifting a sheathed weapon is a DC 50 skill check according to the Epic rules. Lifting one that is in someone's hand(s) is, in fact, not lifting according to the RAW; it is a disarm attempt.

That's what happens when you send a ruleslawyer to do a munchkin's job. You get logical discussion instead of uber powered coolness for no cost.

What were you thinking, man!?!?!?

 

[Vocenoctum]

It's not so much that the DM shouldn't include Sunder in his arsenal, or even that he needs to curb how often he Sunders-- rather, he needs to be aware of what he is sundering, because sundering an important (and singular) "trump card" definitely can spell TPK.

This also includes if the fighter has access to another weapon at all of course. If you sunder the fighters only greatsword, and he doesn't have anything else, it will pretty noticeably reduce his combat effectiveness.


For myself, one of my Dms sundered a weapon, disolved another with a rust dragon, and had a monk steal another one from me. I usually go adamantine for any weapon I want to make important to the character, but it is still irritating to have a central part of your character yanked. Why not go ahead and chop off the wizards hands so he can't cast somatic spells until he gets new ones?

 

[Imp]

The way I usually run things, magic items need unusual materials, and other people's magic weapons are a source of material. Want a +2 ranseur? Sunder the bad guy's +2 sword (or two) and you've got what you need. Takes a big bite out of the costs, and the material's valuable in & of itself. So, sundering sometimes happens. I'm pretty generous with re-forging, and occasionally, I allow a "sundered" PC weapon to just be ridiculously bent or disassembled if that's at all plausible.

The idea of sundering rings is completely ridiculous. But I wonder why sundering bowstrings isn't a more common idea... standard trick for me.

 

[James McMurray]

A big question in all this is: how often as a DM do you destroy or steal a priest's holy symbol, mage's spell component pouch, or even worse the mage's book?

 

[WizarDru]

A big question in all this is: how often as a DM do you destroy or steal a priest's holy symbol, mage's spell component pouch, or even worse the mage's book?

It's usually far more effort to destroy those items than to actually smack down the fighter's weapon. If you're close enough to hit the mage, you're not going to bother with the pouch...the mage will be easier to hit (assuming said pouch is readily identifiable, targetable and that all components are in one spot). And in both the cleric and mage's case, destroying said pouch/symbol doesn't stop them from casting, necessarily. It depends on their spells currently memorized.

A fighter that only has one weapon gets what he gets. Unless he's fighting nothing but weaponless enemies, he'll be armed again fairly quickly....assuming he wasn't already armed with another weapon to begin with (be it a dagger or bow or even a shield). Wulf's point was that, unless the fighter is exclusively built to only use one type of exotic weapon (spiked chain, I'm looking at YOU), he should be able to adapt accordingly....that's one of his talents, after all. Most weapons aren't going to be a 'trump' unless they're something like good, lawful, cold steel, silver or adamantine when that's all that will hurt the monster or bbeg. Otherwise, it's mostly the difference between a few points to your attack, damage or both. This is mostly felt at low levels, where those bonuses will make the most difference, but since there are fewer magic weapons then, it's not as noticable to most games.

 

[Seeten]

A few suggestions: Make sure your main weapon is adamantine. Make sure its at least +1. This gives a hardness of 21 minimum. Hardness makes weapons much harder to break.

If your backup is terrible, or worse, you simply don't even have a backup(happened to my Barbarian) engage passive aggressive behaviour, and demand to leave the dungeon/keep/whatever right away, to get a weapon. Or, suck up AoO's and start using your fists.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm not talking about from an NPC on the battlefield perspective, I'm talking about from a GM perspective. There are many times when destroying a spellbook, holy symbol, etc. is a great idea. Yes, it might not be the best option when you're waving a sword in your face, but unless the game is very one dimensional, things happen outside of sword waving situations.

If you're destroying the fighter's gear but leaving the wizard and cleric alone, there may be something imbalanced in your setup.