Charlie Bell wrote:

If you don't like the penalties for death, play it smart and safe. Adventuring is a hazardous profession.

i have gone through at least 4 PCs per completed adventure path, and have never once payed for a single Resurrection. i keep backup characters on reserve for that reason.

the penalty for bringing in a new PC is not the drain on party resources that is called a Resurrecton, but instead, the not getting a share of the haul from my previous PCs carcass, and the not getting a share of the hauls from which my previous PC died in. that is quite a fair penalty for bringing a new character at APL with level appropriate wealth.

unlike Ressurections, which leads to more wasteful resource expenditure to sustain the PC whom had to keep getting ressurected because he/she bothered to get it done even once. being ressurected even once is a huge drain on party resources.

When I'm in the gaming mood similar to what you're describing, I play Magic: The Gathering, not a RPG like Pathfinder.

Sure, you can use Pathfinder as a table-top battle simulator/board game if you want, but you're pretty much cutting out a HUGE chunk of what the game was built for; "role-playing." From what you describe, it sounds as if you and your players have ZERO investment in your characters and chuck them out like the day's garbage when things become too inconvenient.

I'm not trying to offend or start a fight, but if simply raising a dead teammate once in a while is too much of a fiscal drain on your players, then your groups sounds extremely shallow and uninvested, in my opinion. If you guys are cool with just showing up and slinging dice, then more power to you.

This is like some crazy level of min/max munchkining I've thankfully never seen, in person, in 20+ years of gaming. Are potions even too much of a drain on resources for you guys?

Josh, I don't think it's that they are not invested - but that the GM will assume that all their gold is spent upon resources and that their/the GM bases his encounters upon that.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Wealth by level is a guideline for balancing a campaign in line with the assumptions built into creature CRs. It's not a necessary rule, nor does it imply much about how that WBL is distributed among the PC's gear. So its utility in this case is pretty limited.

But I find your assertion that being a copper behind the richest PC is a matter of life and death is way off. The game tolerates a lot more variance than that.

once you have drank a potion or burned out a wand, it shouldn't count towards WBL anymore because it is no longer useable. WBL is a measure of immediately usable adventuring wealth. in other words, permanent bonus providing equipment.

at the same time, diamonds wasted on a Resurrection are no longer usable wealth either. and thus should no longer count.

Whoa whoa wait a sec, you mean items you spent gold on(potions, diamonds) should no longer count once they're used?

Does that mean I can go to a restaurant, order the most expensive meal they offer, EAT it, and tell my bank it doesn't count because the food is gone and no longer "usable?"

Wowsers.

Josh, I don't think it's that they are not invested - but that the GM will assume that all their gold is spent upon resources and that their/the GM bases his encounters upon that.

If they are willing to chuck out a PC on whim just to save a few coins, then I call that pretty uninvested. Sure, they might be interested in the story, but it doesn't sound like they give a flip about what happens to their characters.

DSXMachina wrote:

Josh, I don't think it's that they are not invested - but that the GM will assume that all their gold is spent upon resources and that their/the GM bases his encounters upon that.

If they are willing to chuck out a PC on w him just to save a few coins, then I call that pretty uninvested. Sure, they might be interested oin the story, but it doesn't sound like they give a flip about what happens to their characters.

Well, depends how much "a few coins" is.

If you spend all your money on mansions and parties are you as well equipped to fight as a dedicated crafter? If so should the GM take this into account?

A new crafting Mage can come in with 250% WBL increase (as he can craft his own gear), should the GM take this into account?

Now sundering will most likely affect the warriors.

I see Lumiere's idea's as promoting RP as they do not have to hoard their gold to survive. They can spend it upon flavourful things like parties and their GM will "approximately" ensure they have the right amount of permanent treasure.

Yes, it's not very simulationist - however it wouldn't predicate it preventing Roleplaying.

Josh M. wrote:

DSXMachina wrote:

Josh, I don't think it's that they are not invested - but that the GM will assume that all their gold is spent upon resources and that their/the GM bases his encounters upon that.

If they are willing to chuck out a PC on w him just to save a few coins, then I call that pretty uninvested. Sure, they might be interested oin the story, but it doesn't sound like they give a flip about what happens to their characters.

Well, depends how much "a few coins" is.

If you spend all your money on mansions and parties are you as well equipped to fight as a dedicated crafter? If so should the GM take this into account?

A new crafting Mage can come in with 250% WBL increase (as he can craft his own gear), should the GM take this into account?

Now sundering will most likely affect the warriors.

I see Lumiere's idea's as promoting RP as they do not have to hoard their gold to survive. They can spend it upon flavourful things like parties and their GM will "approximately" ensure they have the right amount of permanent treasure.

Yes, it's not very simulationist - however it wouldn't predicate it preventing Roleplaying.

Hold up. This person advises against spending any gold on even raising a dead teammate, yet you think they're going to spend it on mansions and parties? The rest of your example falls apart after that.

Spellcasters have rods, wands, staves, etc. I'll sunder those too, lol.

I have never bothered sundering PC equipment.

Does that make me a bad DM? Oh wait, it doesn't.

Basically, it's a big nasty world out there, full of dangerous aeons-old monstrosities, the walking dead, demons, devils, lawyers, the works. The idea that players are these magically untouchable, impervious vestiges of walking wealth is totally and completely absurd to me.

S*** happens. The gold in your pocket is there to help you deal with it, whether it be fixing a broken weapon, fixing a broken teammate, or buying new shiny stuff. What you spend it on is NOT spelled out in the book. The gold is there to use on whatever will help KEEP YOU ALIVE.

I have never bothered sundering PC equipment.

Does that make me a bad DM? Oh wait, it doesn't.

And that's totally fine. Heck, I've also only used the sunder rules once in the past 20 years. I've had my gear sundered by other DM's, and not a tear was shed that day. Grab a backup weapon and keep swinging.

When you have a game where a monster must SPECIFICALLY take the Improved Sunder feat or have a different kind of special ability that lets it Sunder stuff really well, then you cannot use that excuse you presented as a justification to break stuff, Josh. And yes, magical items are very durable. It's why they are magical and don't break like stuff in Fire Emblem does. Hell, in that game, even Major Artifact level weapons break from being used too much!! Makes them feel less epic than they are.

Also, nobody likes breakable weapons. People hate them in video games, and they probably hate them in TTRPG's too.

some items shouldn't count toward WBL because there is no real way to milk an adventuring related bonus out of them. such as mansions and titles.

So yes, if they don't count; then Lumiere does. What they were in fact saying that in your games, since the GM counts every coin you have ever been given you don't buy Mansions.

On the topic of sundering Rods, how often should a wizard be in combat compared to a melee fighter with a sword? And a wizard can be just as effective without have a wand at hand...

Melee combatants without a doubt get hurt worse by a sunder than a spellcaster does.

But, SR doesn't mean jack to a Fighter. This not exactly the balancing factor, but just one thing to consider.

Are we seriously going to turn this into another wizard/ vs. fighter thread?

Who said this was going to be a melee vs caster thread?

Then again, it can still be seen as a flaw of the system itself.

Anyway, I'm willing to say that this thread is done. Closing time!!

When you have a game where a monster must SPECIFICALLY take the Improved Sunder feat or have a different kind of special ability that lets it Sunder stuff really well, then you cannot use that excuse you presented as a justification to break stuff, Josh. And yes, magical items are very durable. It's why they are magical and don't break like stuff in Fire Emblem does. Hell, in that game, even Major Artifact level weapons break from being used too much!! Makes them feel less epic than they are.

Also, nobody likes breakable weapons. People hate them in video games, and they probably hate them in TTRPG's too.

No justification needed. Sundering is in the core rules. It's a viable, legitimate combat tactic. Destroying an enemy's resources(gear, etc) is sometimes a more viable tactic than direct damage. Especially if the BBEG has a big, long speech he's wants to give, detailing how he's going to take over the world before finishing off the heroes.

Do you know how hard it is to give said speech when a barbarian is swinging a sword the size of a surfboard at you? Not easy, lol.

Having a monster/enemy/whatever that specifically targets destroying gear, forces the players to change up their tactics and think on their feet. Doing it all the time would be a jerk-move, but changing up enemies from being mindless punching bags keeps things dangerous and interesting, in my opinion.

Not everyone's cup of tea, but then again I don't like games where the players are invincible kill bots mowing down fields of minions, either.

If your big, tough melees aren't carrying some kind of secondary weapon(a dagger even), then they deserve to sit out due to lack of preparedness. Every character I've ever made has carried some kind of backup, even a simple wooden club if necessary(costs ZERO gold, d6 damage and can be thrown). I've never regretted it

Most creatures in Kingmaker employ a variety of tactics.

Sundering isn't one of them, yet the combat has been interesting.

Also, even a dumb punching bag (an elite troll) managed to kill the Cleric.

Most creatures in Kingmaker employ a variety of tactics.

Sundering isn't one of them, yet the combat has been interesting.

Also, even a dumb punching bag (an elite troll) managed to kill the Cleric.

*EDIT; trying to remove snark. Coffee wearing off.

And Kingmaker is just one AP. Rust Monsters exist in Pathfinder. Sundering is a core-rules option. Not even splatbook territory. Not saying everyone has to use it, just saying that if it does come up in play, there's no reason to cry about it.

And as far as the WBL BS above, I have yet to ever see a DM who completely adheres to it 100%(it's a guideline after all); there's usually enough treasure and looted equipment to compensate the broken stuff already, without having to make special exceptions.

Also, nobody likes breakable weapons.

Hello, my name is Nobody... I could have sworn it was Aaron, but how could that be if I like breakable weapons (in both table-top and video games).

@Josh M

So far that I've looked, I haven't seen Sundering enemies on any of the AP books so far.

People can cry when they feel they should. As a DM, you SHOULD warn players if sundering might come to play.

After all, it's not something every DM employs as a tactic, and will likely upset players for various reasons already explained by others here.

@Aaron

Then allow me to make a small edit to my earlier post. Most people don't like breakable weapons.

@Josh M

So far that I've looked, I haven't seen Sundering enemies on any of the AP books so far.

People can cry when they feel they should. As a DM, you SHOULD warn players if sundering might come to play.

After all, it's not something every DM employs as a tactic, and will likely upset players for various reasons already explained by others here.

@Aaron

Then allow me to make a small edit to my earlier post. Most people don't like breakable weapons.

Fair enough. But should I also warn players that WIZARDS might come into play? I've seen a hell of a lot more campaigns derailed and destroyed by wizard-antics than sundering.

Sundering is listed in the core rule book - so when the DM says "I'm running Pathfinder," he has laid out a warning that sundering is possible (and also that wizards might occur). His only further responsibility regarding the rules is to cover anything he is doing differently from the way the book states the rules.

...such as if he doesn't use sunder.

[quote"Icyshadow"]Then allow me to make a small edit to my earlier post. Most people don't like breakable weapons.

Even that statement is inaccurate. There is not a large enough sample size to evaluate whether a true majority don't like breakable weapons.

You can speak to your experience (i.e. most people I know), or you can speak to the opinion being expressed frequently (i.e. many people), but nothing that sounds like authoritative statistics.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

when you sunder the hypothetical barbarian's greatsword. you pretty much should include an equivalent or slightly better greatsword in the soon to be aquired treasure as compensation for the one you shattered.

No, you do not. You may, but nowhere is it a requirement, or even a suggestion.

Well...that was I think the logic behind the old rule. If your weapon was sundered, it could only be done by a better weapon than you already had.

So in a sense, if you survive the battle you get a replacement.

This is why I am keeping the rule from the first printing.

Melee combatants without a doubt get hurt worse by a sunder than a spellcaster does.

But, SR doesn't mean jack to a Fighter. This not exactly the balancing factor, but just one thing to consider.

Are we seriously going to turn this into another wizard/ vs. fighter thread?

It is one of the the three topics. We can add in Monks and Charisma to make this the one thread that rules them all.

This is why I am keeping the rule from the first printing.

I'm ambivalent, but it doesn't really matter since I can't remember the last time I saw a sunder attempt in my games. Maybe it will come up some day.

ciretose wrote:

This is why I am keeping the rule from the first printing.

I'm ambivalent, but it doesn't really matter since I can't remember the last time I saw a sunder attempt in my games. Maybe it will come up some day.

I like that as a GM, this way I can use it as a tactic without endangering the UBER weapon.

But yeah, YMMV.

shallowsoul wrote:

Stuff...

What would Arthur be without Excalibur?

The hero's gear is a part of his legend, you know.

Hiding behind the legend argument is pointless in D&D/Pathfinder because it's still s game and not a novel, unless your DM decides to run that type of game. If you base your entire character around an item, then you run the risk of your whole concept being changed if it gets sundered. Why should you get special treatment? That's like expecting a DM to only throw cold type creatures because you decided to fill all your spell slots with fire spells and how dare the DM throw anything containing fire at you.

Icyshadow wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Stuff...

What would Arthur be without Excalibur?

The hero's gear is a part of his legend, you know.

Hiding behind the legend argument is pointless in D&D/Pathfinder because it's still s game and not a novel, unless your DM decides to run that type of game. If you base your entire character around an item, then you run the risk of your whole concept being changed if it gets sundered. Why should you get special treatment? That's like expecting a DM to only throw cold type creatures because you decided to fill all your spell slots with fire spells and how dare the DM throw anything containing fire at you.

There's a big difference between asking for the DM to be reasonable and being a whiny and entitled jerk of a player.

Apparently you're equating them to the same thing here, so you're either trying to hit a straw man, or then you're a killer DM.

And how is the argument pointless? Is it because you say so? Also, the heroes are special. Compared to NPCs, they get special treatment.

However, that doesn't mean that gold rains on them when they sneeze and all their weapons turn into Vorpal +6 Swords when they say a little prayer.

I read the first page of this thread because I find this topic very interesting and soon to be relevant but I didn't notice anyone mention (though again, only read the first page, there are about 320 posts so....) that HALF the guys loot should be consisting of items and the other half ought to be cash. That means at level 4 (for instance), when he has 6000GP, 3000GP worth are comprised COMPLETELY of items, not just a massive cleaver, but armor and items too. If that weapon is destroyed, he ought to have 3000GP to fall back on, and again, even though all his resources together are in total 3000GP worth, no individual item is going to be worth that much.

I understand that no one likes a broken weapon, but sometimes you have to improvise and a well built melee combatant need not fear broken weapons. Your NON-magical weapons won't sunder, trip, disarm or bullrush as good, but unless their enchantments were SPECIFICALLY geared for these maneuvers, you're only a few points away from being able to do all that anyway.

But seriously, he should still have half his wealth by level GP left to buy something new.

Josh M. wrote:

I disagree on the "wealth penalty" thing. Your character's in-game wealth is a finite resource. Things are going to happen in-game that are going to make your character spend that resource on staying alive; potions, curse removals, food, etc. Repairing broken equipment is pretty standard fare for any profession, and when your profession involves hitting things as hard as you can with your "tools," sometimes you have to spend a little gold to keep things working.

Honestly? The whole "wealth penalty" idea reeks of entitlement. As if from day 1, your character's wealth can and will ONLY be spent on better stuff and never to shore up weaknesses and keep equipment viable. I call shenanigans.

Is spending gold in town to get a Restoration spell cast on you a "Wealth penalty" as well? Are CLW potions a "wealth penalty?" How about food?

As a DM, I don't even like the idea of sundering a PC's gear, but it's a legal, viable combat option and it can come up whenever the DM damn well feels like it. A polite DM warns players ahead of time that tactics like this exist in the setting, but there's no contract anywhere or any rule that says "The DM must not do anything that might affect anything on a PC."

Considering that WBL is in the core rulebook as a measure of the magically enhanced equipment that one has, and any destroyed irreplacable weapons or used consumables do not count as usable wealth anymore. does mean, that buying a restoration in town or buying a potion is indeed a wealth penalty and delays the acquisition of equipment. the penalty is relative to players who didn't have to take the penalty.

when you sunder the hypothetical barbarian's greatsword. you pretty much should include an equivalent or slightly better greatsword in the soon to be aquired treasure as compensation for the one you shattered.

wealth is a very precious resource in pathfinder, and misplaced wealth, such as even being a single copper piece behind the richest PC, can cost you your life. just...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

I think it's even more sad to see the players all walk away from the table while the DM laughs at his own stupid joke.

DM: "Hahaha!! I totally just broke all your gear, and now you owe the local Cleric twice your gold for all the Ressurections he's had to pull on you over the last few days.
Man, is this game fun or wha- ...wait, why are you looking at me like that? Hey, where are you going?! Hey, wait! Come back!"

Player: "That was the worst game ever. Anyone else up for being DM?"

Yeah, if you want to pull off one extreme of an argument, you have to take into account the polar opposite of it as well. Some Equalizer you are.

The equalizer, I think what Lumiere could be saying is that the GM doesn't usually penny pinch?

Do GM's keep a track of every copper given out or just do an audit of the approx amount of treasure.

Buy more adamantine.

As a player, WBL is none of your business. It's not your job to go flipping through the WBL at every level to make sure you are getting what "you" think you should be getting. That's the DM's job because not all DMs run their games alike. In my games we don't go by the WBL, I introduce the items and I keep track of what I give out and I may throw lesser but appropriate CR creatures because of the lack of items.

The equalizer wrote:

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

I think it's even more sad to see the players all walk away from the table while the DM laughs at his own stupid joke.

DM: "Hahaha!! I totally just broke all your gear, and now you owe the local Cleric twice your gold for all the Ressurections he's had to pull on you over the last few days.
Man, is this game fun or wha- ...wait, why are you looking at me like that? Hey, where are you going?! Hey, wait! Come back!"

Player: "That was the worst game ever. Anyone else up for being DM?"

Yeah, if you want to pull off one extreme of an argument, you have to take into account the polar opposite of it as well. Some Equalizer you are.

So, losing a weapon equals death? That's a p**s-poor prepared FIghter for ya.

Obligatory "took knocks and kept walking" story.

If your character invests THAT much of themselves in a material object, it's practically BEGGING the DM to do something to it. Clubs are free. Carry one as a spare

The example I provided was exaggerated just like Equalizer's was. Also, since Kingmaker (or any other AP I have) has no sundering foes, I haven't felt the need to tell my players they might need spare weapons to put more encumberance on them with the exception of Bludgeoning weapons in case undead show up. Even a light load is anathema in combat, and my players are very aware of that, letting the Handy Haversack carry most of their stuff for the same reason.

Josh no-ones saying that you should not occasionally sunder the weapons, but that there are reprocussions. Also no-one said that "Loosing a weapon = death", just that it has consequences.

Also how many times did the GM break your weapons? How many encounters did you have afterwards? (although I don't mind being rubbish for a few levels - Heck, I have a duellist PC that hasn't got a magic weapon in 5 years real time)

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

I disagree on the "wealth penalty" thing. Your character's in-game wealth is a finite resource. Things are going to happen in-game that are going to make your character spend that resource on staying alive; potions, curse removals, food, etc. Repairing broken equipment is pretty standard fare for any profession, and when your profession involves hitting things as hard as you can with your "tools," sometimes you have to spend a little gold to keep things working.

Honestly? The whole "wealth penalty" idea reeks of entitlement. As if from day 1, your character's wealth can and will ONLY be spent on better stuff and never to shore up weaknesses and keep equipment viable. I call shenanigans.

Is spending gold in town to get a Restoration spell cast on you a "Wealth penalty" as well? Are CLW potions a "wealth penalty?" How about food?

As a DM, I don't even like the idea of sundering a PC's gear, but it's a legal, viable combat option and it can come up whenever the DM damn well feels like it. A polite DM warns players ahead of time that tactics like this exist in the setting, but there's no contract anywhere or any rule that says "The DM must not do anything that might affect anything on a PC."

Considering that WBL is in the core rulebook as a measure of the magically enhanced equipment that one has, and any destroyed irreplacable weapons or used consumables do not count as usable wealth anymore. does mean, that buying a restoration in town or buying a potion is indeed a wealth penalty and delays the acquisition of equipment. the penalty is relative to players who didn't have to take the penalty.

when you sunder the hypothetical barbarian's greatsword. you pretty much should include an equivalent or slightly better greatsword in the soon to be aquired treasure as compensation for the one you shattered.

wealth is a very precious resource in pathfinder, and misplaced wealth, such as even being a single copper piece behind the

...

That's it right there, it was factored in with the WBL. Also, even healing (cause it was brought up as being a cost factor), you're not necessarily going to get into a fight tomorrow, have the guy with the highest heal check take care of you for this night, maybe even tomorrow night if nothing dangerous is coming your way by then. You won't heal that much damage, but it's a cheaper method when you have down time.

The equalizer, I think what Lumiere could be saying is that the GM doesn't usually penny pinch?

Do GM's keep a track of every copper given out or just do an audit of the approx amount of treasure.

Thanks Machina, I got the gist of that but what really irritated me was such listed examples. Not the topic of the thread but this sort of situation where "magical item X gets sundered or destroyed = pc chucking huge fit + compensation." So, there is now compensation (possibly like a welfare state) and any attack/ability/spell which can affect the pc's equipment at least semi-permanently, gets factored in. Guess it just comes down to different play styles but wow, talk about pulling MANY punches and truckloads of hand-holding.

Also, there are players that take ability drain and carrying situational weapons as anathema. One of my players got extremely frustrated recently because he lost a fortitude check to a creature's poison tipped weapon and took 2 points of strength damage (even though I told him he can heal it overnight he was still a little frustrated). Players get frustrated, but they need to know that there are alternatives and fixes in this game (drain, DR/specific damage type, diseases and broken weapons, all fixable problems).

Am I in the only group that takes left over gold and items and puts it into a group fund that is used to pay for different things such as, emergency gear, Resurrection, Raise Dead, Restoration etc...?

Also, there are players that take ability drain and carrying situational weapons as anathema. One of my players got extremely frustrated recently because he lost a fortitude check to a creature's poison tipped weapon and took 2 points of strength damage (even though I told him he can heal it overnight he was still a little frustrated). Players get frustrated, but they need to know that there are alternatives and fixes in this game (drain, DR/specific damage type, diseases and broken weapons, all fixable problems).

This. I could not have phrased it any better. Flexibility in the face of adversity or rolling with the outcome or downsides of the situation. Instead of relying on the notion that "universal PC self-entitlement scroll saves party" by limiting what the dm can do strategically, based on what is level appropriate for the party.

My group has organized gold as a back-up for various things, but they'd still be annoyed if I broke all their weapons and armor five times over just to reduce their savings, which they usually use either for Ressurection spells or for crafting magic items that boost their efficiency in survival and/or combat situations. Hell, the least prepared for this situation would be the new guy, who's currently also has the strongest character thanks to good stats and feats.

She has no back-up weapons whatsoever, just her +2 Fey Bane Aldori Dueling Sword and her +1 Composite Longbow.

Am I in the only group that takes left over gold and items and puts it into a group fund that is used to pay for different things such as, emergency gear, Resurrection, Raise Dead, Restoration etc...?

Nope. We do that too.

In fact, we calculate an extra share for just that purpose when dividing treasure.

Am I in the only group that takes left over gold and items and puts it into a group fund that is used to pay for different things such as, emergency gear, Resurrection, Raise Dead, Restoration etc...?

Nope. We have our individual wealth, but also keep a group fund for the things you described above.

But, everybody plays differently. Apparently, very, very differently.

The equalizer wrote:

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

I think it's even more sad to see the players all walk away from the table while the DM laughs at his own stupid joke.

DM: "Hahaha!! I totally just broke all your gear, and now you owe the local Cleric twice your gold for all the Ressurections he's had to pull on you over the last few days.
Man, is this game fun or wha- ...wait, why are you looking at me like that? Hey, where are you going?! Hey, wait! Come back!"

Player: "That was the worst game ever. Anyone else up for being DM?"

Yeah, if you want to pull off one extreme of an argument, you have to take into account the polar opposite of it as well. Some Equalizer you are.

I have yet to see a campaign where the dm broke the equipment of all the pcs as the norm. Furthermore, how was my example extreme? We had the mention earlier on of a "wealth penalty" which should be factored into the loot of the encounter to compensate for this sort of thing. Meaning, an ogre barb without sunder would have a lower gp value in loot compared to an ogre barb who had sunder. The same way a wizard who could cast shatter would have slightly more loot in terms of gp value, compared to another wizard who was pure enchantment or something. As pointed out by Josh earlier in the thread, it reeks of self-entitlement and I could not agree more. If thats the sort of gamestyle you enjoy, more power to you. I personally prefer games where the danger of being killed, captured, equipment stolen.... is very evident. Seen dms who pulled punches, some pcs love the safety, other pcs start nodding off.

I have yet to see a campaign where the dm broke the equipment of all the pcs as the norm. Furthermore, how was my example extreme?

Because we have yet to see a campaign where the DM reimbursed every copper spent on something besides gear.

My group has organized gold as a back-up for various things, but they'd still be annoyed if I broke all their weapons and armor five times over just to reduce their savings, which they usually use either for Ressurection spells or for crafting magic items that boost their efficiency in survival and/or combat situations. Hell, the least prepared for this situation would be the new guy, who's currently also has the strongest character thanks to good stats and feats.

She has no back-up weapons whatsoever, just her +2 Fey Bane Aldori Dueling Sword and her +1 Composite Longbow.

Well then don't sunder their stuff just to reduce their savings. Do it because that's what their enemy might do in character. If the giant with improved sunder is taking a few harsh hits from the PC's sword, smash the object of his torment. Same if a good shield is keeping the giant from hitting - smash the shield.

What would Arthur be without Excalibur?

The hero's gear is a part of his legend, you know.

I remember the legend of Arthur. He's that king who sold Excalibur to the local baker after finding a +3 sword, right?

My group has organized gold as a back-up for various things, but they'd still be annoyed if I broke all their weapons and armor five times over just to reduce their savings, which they usually use either for Ressurection spells or for crafting magic items that boost their efficiency in survival and/or combat situations. Hell, the least prepared for this situation would be the new guy, who's currently also has the strongest character thanks to good stats and feats.

She has no back-up weapons whatsoever, just her +2 Fey Bane Aldori Dueling Sword and her +1 Composite Longbow.

Dude enough with the straw. Are you building an army of scarecrows or something?