|
I consider all combat maneuvers to be valid for NPCs if they are available for PCs to use. There is no reason to assume they would not be.
And if you are a BBEG who just got sliced all to hell by the little dude with the little sword and you had Improved Sunder, oh you better believe some sundering is going to happen.
Out of curiosity, for folks who view Sundering by NPCs to be bad form, what are your views on creatures such as Carytid Columns, Forgefiends or spells such as Mage's Disjunction?
Out of curiosity, for folks who view Sundering by NPCs to be bad form, what are your views on creatures such as Carytid Columns, Forgefiends or spells such as Mage's Disjunction?
I've never had a player willing to use Mage's Disjunction. That said, I have some spells I don't want either side to use and some i'm okay with PCs using but not okay with NPCs using. Save or dies are a good example. Used on PCs they are much more devastating. Used on nameless mooks they really don't do much that wouldn't happened anyway. Its also not very exciting to die from. Carytid Columns aren't a creature I'd use, nor forgefiends. Lots of other creatures to choose.
I know some people have a nuclear arms race agreement where neither side uses certain spells that wreck the game or make it less fun for both, such as feeblemind or other save or dies.(slumber happy witch's can make a BBEG really boring...)
Or you can pay for a Hardening spell to be cast on your favorite equipment.Uhhhhh ....
Yes, you and I are both twelve. It was the first thing that came to mind, too.
(But I looked it up, because I remembered it from the "old" days.)
I keep seeing disarm tossed up as an alternative to sunder and I have only one thing to say to that:
BBEG disarms your front line fighter, sending his +X weapon of shiny Y spinning 15ft away. BBEG minion scoops up the shiny weapon and then proceeds to murder the back line that just moments ago was ignoring his presence!
Personally that was a super amusing fight to witness, but needless to say the party was mad about death by party weapon. Campaign restarted a little later with the first plot train focused on retrieving it.
I'll have to ask them if they would've preferred having the weapon destroyed or the outcome they got.
If your entire back line got roflstomped by one BBEG minion it's probably not thanks to the weapon but thanks to them being s&!& at dealing with getting hit at all and making zero plans to avoid it, unless you made up an epic level item that doesn't coincide at all with the magic item rules, if it wasn't the +x weapon of shiny Y it would have been them getting stabbed to death by the +(X-a) weapon of mediocre W.I keep seeing disarm tossed up as an alternative to sunder and I have only one thing to say to that:
BBEG disarms your front line fighter, sending his +X weapon of shiny Y spinning 15ft away. BBEG minion scoops up the shiny weapon and then proceeds to murder the back line that just moments ago was ignoring his presence!
Personally that was a super amusing fight to witness, but needless to say the party was mad about death by party weapon. Campaign restarted a little later with the first plot train focused on retrieving it.
I'll have to ask them if they would've preferred having the weapon destroyed or the outcome they got.
To be fair, their plan wasn't a horrendous one. The back line in this case involved a couple fullplate wearers who were quite confident in their abilities to not be hit (it had worked right up to the BBEG's direct minions). The minion in question was rocking some power attacking cleavage and was super happy to find his relatively mundane (at that point) two-hander replacement just laying around. And he crit'd to boot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a fair tactic from either side. From the creature's point of view:
"This Hobgoblin is named Mike. Mike worked for two whole years in the gang before he got his first chance to kill some adventures. Mike whips out his family's heirloom greataxe and charges fearlessly into the foolish adventures, only to have the first guy in line whip his weird looking spear across his greataxe's head, his father's father's axe that once cleaved straight through a giant's leg, shattering it into a handful of metal shards. Standing dumbfounded, Mike didn't even notice that very same spear whip across his throat and release that pesky pressure from his blood."
So Mike is dead. But you better believe Mike's older brother Phil has it out for this spear wielding man.
Point being, having a weapon sundered and destroyed sucks. Just because it's a player character shouldn't make them immune. Variety makes the game interesting, if every fight was the same then we'd all play the same classes with the same gear and this wouldn't be a good system. But it isn't and yes, sunder is an option. That enemies can take. It's as much a part of the system as grappling is.
I asked in a thread if anyone who was using a whip build ever had thier GM sunder the whip, and this is one of the responses I got.
"I've never had a GM who screwed his players over by abusing sunder.
It's just bad form to destroy player's magical weapons."
So is it wrong to uses combat maneuvers against a PC if said maneuver would destroy a players equipment?
I will equate using Sunder like raising a kid. Imagine the kid is your group of PCs. You as the DM are the parent. An involved parent, one who cares and listens to his/her kid understands them the best. You as the DM know your PCs. You decide if sunder works.
Heck if you leave enough hints that they will face something or someone who is known for such maneuvers they should prepare. Drop a hint by hearing a name Sir Wrecksyoursword, or by rumor or story about how many hilts hes collected from breaking heros blades, then the PCs will know what they are facing and maybe they'll leave their nice shiny sword at home and bring a board with a nail in it, or my personal favorite, a sack of rusty doorknobs. Go ahead and sunder the heck out of that! Maybe they devise away to take his sword away first? Grease spell on the weapon is always nice.
Sir Wrecksyoursword dropped his blade, PCs drop their boards and sacks of doorknobs and bring out the nice shiny blades. Maybe they like the sack of rusty doorknobs so much they make it +1. New favorite weapon!
Maybe they get so concerned over their gear they avoid that NPC completely. I dunno. You know your group best, only you can decide if it will work and how.
It's all about levels of attachment. If your player's get all doe-eyed about a super piece of gear then you'll probably want to limit the sundering prowess of your enemies. At the same time, tossing a Column or an Oxidation Beast in keeps the players on their toes and teaches them that their equipment is just as vulnerable as their soft, squishy bits.
It's a fair tactic from either side. From the creature's point of view:
"This Hobgoblin is named Mike. Mike worked for two whole years in the gang before he got his first chance to kill some adventures. Mike whips out his family's heirloom greataxe and charges fearlessly into the foolish adventures, only to have the first guy in line whip his weird looking spear across his greataxe's head, his father's father's axe that once cleaved straight through a giant's leg, shattering it into a handful of metal shards. Standing dumbfounded, Mike didn't even notice that very same spear whip across his throat and release that pesky pressure from his blood."
So Mike is dead. But you better believe Mike's older brother Phil has it out for this spear wielding man.
Point being, having a weapon sundered and destroyed sucks. Just because it's a player character shouldn't make them immune. Variety makes the game interesting, if every fight was the same then we'd all play the same classes with the same gear and this wouldn't be a good system. But it isn't and yes, sunder is an option. That enemies can take. It's as much a part of the system as grappling is.
Why do we care about Mike the Hobgoblin though? NPCs happen to be much more disposable than PCs. Your expected to kill a mountain of Mike the Hobgoblins that come in the form of nameless mooks.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff like this has been the topic of a lot of boards lately and even one I posted about "is it possible that people are running things wrong".
I think the real issues is that people have dynamically different expectations of the game and some things that are legit get people fired up because it is outside of their idea of what is fun. I would like to blame video games for this but honestly I think it is a general sense of entitlement that is common today. People don’t want their items that they found or bought destroyed because those things are hard work to get them back, however, it is never “unfair” to play the game using the rules provided.
Sunder is part of the game if a monster or enemy NPC has it I am definitely going to use it against my players. They may be angry but all is fair in love in war.
Also someone said that the rust monster was nerfed and I would disagree. Two hits vs your weapon or armor and it is destroyed?? That seems scary.
Destroying items isn’t distasteful or “bad form” but is annoying. I can see why people don’t like it but it will also remind players that tactics should be considered in combat. Sunder a cleric’s holy symbol or a Druid’s holly sprig and see how much they change their combat tactics and become more mindful in the future.
Personally I am not closed to the idea of playing other pen and paper table top RPGs. If I am using the rules of the game against my players in pathfinder to sunder weapons and destroy armor and my players want to throw a tantrum about it, I will gladly suggest that we switch to a game that does not have rules for such actions.
I told a friend the other day "if it isn't fun, it isn't serving its purpose" but with that in mind, I'll use the rules that are presented to make things interesting and fun for me, the GM, as well. If someone wants to play a fantasy campaign setting that doesn't include rules for sundering and such then we can go out and find one but I'm not going to ignore a rule just because someone personally doesn't like it.
It reminds me of the time that my players didn’t want to roll to confirm critical hits but wanted monsters to have to roll to confirm….uhm, no, that’s not fair. Maybe it is the fact that I don’t mind killing player’s at all. When I am a player I don’t mind dying because I used poor tactics or got over confident so I don’t tend to start modifying rules. They exist for a reason and if my gaming group becomes disenchanted with the rules there are dozens of other products out there that will allow us to play differently.
Not everyone has the money to just go out and buy new books for a completely different system? True, but then why would someone go out and invest any real amount of money in a game whose rule system they have significant problems with?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also someone said that the rust monster was nerfed and I would disagree. Two hits vs your weapon or armor and it is destroyed?? That seems scary.
It may still be scary, but the rust monster is definitely less efficient at destroying items now than before.
In 3.5, it only needed to touch the item once to dissolve it (as opposed to PF's twice; 3.5 did grant a Reflex save though).
More importantly, any metal weapon that dealt damage to the rust monster would similarly be dissolved, although without a save. This latter ability is the main difference, and was the main danger of the 3.5 rust monster. Losing that ability certainly counts as a "nerf".
Sorry sunder is permanent by defaultThe PRD and I disagree.
If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it.You can choose to destroy it - not choose not to. A subtle, but important, difference.
Not really that important in this context IMO.
Having your opponent get a -2 and crit nerfing from the broken condition on their weapon is nice, but not attacking at all due to a destroyed weapon is obviously much better in most situations.
Disarm seems a much better tactic for a bad guy trying to neutralize and specifically not destroy your weapon, unless he is optimized only for sunder.
It would have to be a fairly specific scenario for a bad guy to try to break your weapon a little bit but not enough to make it so you cannot use it against him as you are trying to actively decapitate him with it.
An opponent who recognizes the value of a magic weapon and wants it as loot while not fearing it will be used to kill him first, one who wants to be on the edge of destroying the weapon to use that as a threat, One who wants to reduce the PC's threat temporarily and demonstrate martial superiority while not really fearing being killed by the PC, etc.
In practice though the default of attempting to sunder is going to be to try to break the opponent's weapon so they can't use it.
Plus equipment is already broken when down to 1/2 hp. When you reduce it further to 0 you can either choose to destroy it or leave it at 1 hp and the already applied broken condition so no further effect. So a bad guy sunderer can choose to destroy your weapon at 0 hp or leave it at the probably already broken condition for no net effect from his succesful maneuver attack he used instead of attacking.
|
Balance in all things. "Never" disarming/sundering weapons makes a small portion of class features and feats useless (Fighter's bonuses to CMD, etc.)
If your players are reasonable, you should be able to occasionally throw this at them and be fine. In an adventure, you can't expect your armor and weapons to be invincible no more than you can assume you'll never get hit or attacked. It's part of combat, and life.
Talk it out with a group first, and reasonable people should be able to accept that it's a danger they need to prepare for. If the Dragon was statted out in the Bestiary with Improved/Greater Sunder, yes he's going to power attack Sunder the Archer who is obliterating him from 200ft away.
[I specifically did this to our local DPS; she was doing nothing but attack rolls. No RP, no effort in researching magic items or alternate feats; just going straight down the "I shoot things." summary for her character. So when they faced a dragon, it bit her precious bow in twain. She did have a backup, but learned a very potent lesson.
Never use CM to abuse or "punish" players, but they're excellent tools for keeping PCs on their toes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Monster has Sunder or improved sunder in it's stats then as far as I am concerned it's gonna use it.
and it often makes sense.
Can't Hurt that noble Knight who is stabbing you because he's covered head to tow in metal. Smash the tin can till he is standing in his skivies.
Never use CM to abuse or "punish" players, but they're excellent tools for keeping PCs on their toes.
I specifically did this to our local DPS; she was doing nothing but attack rolls. No RP, no effort in researching magic items or alternate feats; just going straight down the "I shoot things." summary for her character. So when they faced a dragon, it bit her precious bow in twain. She did have a backup, but learned a very potent lesson.
Seems like there's a bit of a contradiction here. "Never use sundering players, but one time I totally did that to punish someone for not playing the game right."
|
Using it as a tactic to defeat an enemy and disable their most powerful items and leave them less viable to harm you? Totally valid
Using it as a way to habitually torture your PC's and take away their loot, bad.
Basically just make sure that, like any creature, character, or build you have thought out the mentality of the characters using said techniques, their reasons for using it, and how they and/or the people they work with plan with it.
I mean I can easily see an Ogrekin fighter built to break all the things who is teamed up with a thief who just skirts around the field, granting flanking and stealing things off the target that he thinks are valuable while his big friend distracts them.
|
|
I asked in a thread if anyone who was using a whip build ever had thier GM sunder the whip, and this is one of the responses I got.
"I've never had a GM who screwed his players over by abusing sunder.
It's just bad form to destroy player's magical weapons."
So is it wrong to uses combat maneuvers against a PC if said maneuver would destroy a players equipment?
The GM giveth, the GM taketh away. Anything the players can do, everyone else should be able to do as well. Any tactic is valid especially when you give it real world application (as best can be in a fantasy setting).
|
|
Never use CM to abuse or "punish" players, but they're excellent tools for keeping PCs on their toes.I specifically did this to our local DPS; she was doing nothing but attack rolls. No RP, no effort in researching magic items or alternate feats; just going straight down the "I shoot things." summary for her character. So when they faced a dragon, it bit her precious bow in twain. She did have a backup, but learned a very potent lesson.Seems like there's a bit of a contradiction here. "Never use sundering players, but one time I totally did that to punish someone for not playing the game right."
That is indeed a bit contratdictory. I did not fully flesh out my thoughts and re-read my post to make sure it was one clear concise thought, something I tend to do a lot when rushing.
To clarify the situation: the player being dedicated to doing nothing in the game but roll attack rolls was not the problem, it was the fact that she was so good at it, that it started making encounters unbalanced, and I was planning completely around her in every fight.
I had spoken to her about this more than once, asking her to at least flesh out the character or make her more dynamic. She refused.
She was a new player, so I had been especially careful not to seek her out or do something as drastic as break her weapon, feeling that'd be a bit harsh. This is also why I'd let the situation go on for 13 levels and a year of playing. However, we're now five books into RotR and she still refuses to take any protection measures for herself in any way. She generally doesn't even bother to upgrade her items, waiting for others to give her things. She knows how to at this point, she just doesn't care.
It was at that point, after 13 levels of unwillingness to change and self-assurance that I'd never actually do anything to her, that I used Sunder to show her A. that she needs to learn the rest of the game instead of us spoon-feeding it to her and B. that if I take the gloves off and actually respond to her character's level of power to the full degree, she will not last more than a session.
My scenario is a more specific example of GM specifically choosing to employ CMs because he knows the player(s) are openly ignoring them as dangers and refuse to change even after blatant warnings.
In general, a GM should use Combat Maneuvers normally like any other part of the game, and players should be expected to deal with the consequences of not preparing for trip/sunder dangers, as if no enemy will ever have the audacity to attack their sword instead of trying to chop off their head.
Does that help clarify a bit?
The players have to decide, what would they rather have happen, their toy gets sundered/stolen/burnt or their character dies?
Where is this ultimatum coming from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if the opponent is sundering your stuff, that usually means they want to take you prisoner. i.e. you're still alive. (and can now do a whole Great Escape adventure!)
If they aren't , then they are trying to kill you a quickly as possible.I know what I'd prefer.
I do too.
I'd prefer them to try and kill me.
Because with my gear I can usually take just about anybody.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't that just mean that the longer you go on, the more likely your enemies are to realize they are better off taking your gear away?
Which just spurs me to use cheap and underhanded and "cheesy" tactics as well to compensate for the fact that I'm down a good chunk of my effectiveness from lost gear. It's a vicious cycle, and one that ends up no fun for anyone involved.
Unlike most combat maneuvers, Sunder has consequences beyond a single battle. Trip, Grapple, even Disarm and you're using powerful tactics that neutralize many PC benefits.
FOR THAT BATTLE.
Which is how it should be done if you need to knock a character down a peg every once in a while. Not break their stuff. The best way to get anybody mad at you is to break their stuff. Imaginary stuff, in this scenario, but still theirs.
Kicking someone in the nuts hurts for a bit, but it passes. Smashing someone's laptop kicks them in the wallet, which is a lot more anger inducing.
Same deal with this game and Sunder. It's a tactic to be used sparingly, not because it isn't a valid tactic, but because it IS a valid tactic that nevertheless will likely piss off your player more than anything else you can do to them, up to and including killing them.
It doesn't help that it's a really cheap and easy tactic too. Sunder is pretty much the easiest combat maneuver to pull off, with the least investment necessary, since it's essentially a full attack directed at breaking your character's s#&&, and at any level beyond about 8 your attacker is going to have enough damage to smash a piece of equipment a shot, or close to it.
This is not a logic, or a verisimilitude thing. This is a player-GM contract thing. If the PCs refrain from fun stuff like Snowcone Wish Machines, the GM should refrain from doing the single most infuriating tactic in the game more than once in a blue moon. I'm not even saying NEVER use it. Just don't use it often.
I personally think Sunder should be limited to a standard action, not a full round. No item can survive a full round of attacks that I know of. Not even adamantine based ones, if a character is focused on damage.
No I am not one of those nice GM's that makes sure players survive. I threw a finger of death at a player a few days ago. I have used vorpal swords. I have tried disintegrate(at least once per campaign), but taking things away makes people upset so even though I have allowed my share of PC's to die, I have never sundered anything. That does not mean I never will, but it will be rare since I have not done it once even after 10(well almost 10) years.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a player-GM contract thing.
This is the important bit that GMs should do for their games. In mine, I told the players that anything goes as far as tactics (with the exception of gaming the system) and that I as the GM have the last word and can trump anything (and with great power comes great responsibility).
I can say with confidence that my players trust me as a GM. As long as I have that trust, I feel that I can occasionally push the limits of the game and still have it be a good time. The thing to avoid is players taking on a player vs GM attitude.
I have a short to-do list in the back of my head:
I have killed a PC (well, he got smooshed by a falling block trap). Now players know for certain that their characters can die. (Check)
I have not sundered a a character's item yet, but I am planning to do it.
I have not stolen a a character's item yet, but I am planning to do it.
I have not plundered a character's residence yet, but I am planning to do it
I have not killed a favorite NPC yet, but I am planning to do it.
I have not given a character a cursed item, but I am planning to do it.
I have not inflicted a character with a terrible disease, but I am planning to do it.
I want my players to understand that they are not untouchable. But at the same time, I want them to feel that they can take steps to protect themselves. This means that if they take reasonable precautions, most of the time they will be OK and they should get validation that their defenses are working...but there will also be times when it will not be enough. After all, no matter how good you are, there is always someone who is better.
All of these things also serve as possible components to making an interesting story, but they are also ways to motivate players into action. If GMs stay away from things that players love, then they are left with things that the players don't care much about...and people aren't generally inspired by things they don't care much about...
If you get sundered, just have a high level cleric cast make whole, if that won't work you're probably high enough level that a limited wish is not expensive, that will probably work. Its not that big a deal, it's just jarring when it happens.
If you get sundered, just have a high level cleric cast make whole, if that won't work you're probably high enough level that a limited wish is not expensive, that will probably work. Its not that big a deal, it's just jarring when it happens.
If your hammer or screwdriver shatters while your doing work with it, its actually quiet a bit of an inconvenience. I might someway find a way to work or find a replacement or fix it, but it takes a lot more than a few moments to do so. Might even take a day or so depending on what your doing, or you may have to drop what your doing to go fix/replace it ASAP and depend on someone else to do so!
If my hammer/screwdriver/wrench/shovel/axe/tire iron breaks when I am working with it I just grab one my spares. I keep two-three of each around. Saves a lot of time and anxiety.
If my hammer/screwdriver/wrench/shovel/axe/tire iron breaks when I am working with it I just grab one my spares. I keep two-three of each around. Saves a lot of time and anxiety.
I was talking about the item that broke though, not the replacements. Talking about how easy it is to repair something is much different than talking about your spares. Sometimes its not that easy to replace a +3 flaming wrench.
Yes it is the long term impact of sunder that makes it such a raw deal.
I don't know.
It seems to me that complaining about sunder in a reality where magical items are a dime a dozen, as they are in many if not most 3.0/3.5/3.75 campaigns, is more than a little inappropriate. Losing doesn't mean as much when gaining is so easy.
Saul Alinsky said, "Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have." (Italics mine.) Don't imply genius in combat (as so many here do) when all it takes to upset your plans and perceived sense of invincibility is to have a particular toy or toys taken away.
And, frankly, if it gets to the point where you'd prefer a character be killed than lose his or her possessions, well ... that's a pretty damned skewed set of values—either in game or out, in my opinion.
"I don't want to live without you!" is fine when addressed to the great love of your life.
It isn't fine for your +4 Bítchin' Blade.
It's very different when it costs less (and is far more likely) to get you raised from the dead than it is to get your stuff back.
To be clear: in all cases, the characters (likely) care more about their own life than their blade; the players, on the other hand, know that it's only eleven thousand gold to come back from the dead, but it's 32,000 at least for said +4 blade - nearly three times as much. And that's presuming it's just a "vanilla" +4 - depending on how much your actual bonus is, it could easily be 50,000 or 72,000.
That's the problem.
(In addition to the scaling difficulty of having a caster level high enough to restore your shattered whatever.)
I mean, in the Wealth By Level Chart, the resurrection is a substantial part of your wealth, sure, but it's far, far less (comparatively) than the blade-replacement.
(This attitude is not shared in the games I've run, but I can easily see how it develops.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I'm very surprised by this thread and how many people seem to feel that NPCs and monsters should never sunder.
Sunder isn't a common tactic of many opponents in my game, it really is very niche, but it'll come up when appropriate to the opponent's skill set and personality. As for player expectation, I would have thought players were sufficiently warned when they opened up the rule-book and saw that it's a combat move. If they made their decisions regarding equipment based on the idea that it could never ever get sundered, I'd wonder where they got that idea from.
It's only bad form if you're doing it for metagame reasons, or to deliberately mess with your players. If every opponent you met did nothing but spam sunder, then I'd wonder what the GM was thinking. However if your NPCs are sundering because that's the appropriate action for them to take, then it's legitimate to my mind.
As to the original example with some sort of whip-trick. If a player sets up a situation where sundering their weapon is the most intelligent tactical choice, then it's their own fault that a lot of opponents would choose to attempt a sunder. (I'll emphasize the use of the word tactical there rather than strategic. Unless an opponent is very self-sacrificing, they're going to be concerned about their own survival, not whether they can inconvenience the PCs after the fight is over).
I threw a finger of death at a player a few days ago.
And I deserved it, after those crits lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fully understood; your point is a valid one, in a pragmatic sense. Dramatically, it's beyond preposterous.
And, we're back to "Metagaming: Is or Isn't It Complete Bullshìt?" once more.
My response is: no, it isn't.
It can cause many problems (which is why people hate it) including taking people out of immersion, but it can also be a buy-in, a point of character growth, and a method of permitting game-play.
Also, there are many ways of justifying it in-character: a greedy or overly-materialistic soul (even if you're not evil), or the characters can simply notice patterns in the universe.
But all that aside: the GM knows how harsh it is on the players. And it's the GM's job to make sure that the players can play the game.
If the players can do so, and function well (within the parameters of "we are, as a group, having fun"), then there should be no problem. If, on the other hand, the players aren't having fun under the dynamic, the dynamic needs to change.
EDIT:
The point isn't that sunder is wrong or bad form inherently. The point is that sunder can be wrong, and can be bad form, depending on the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for thread tie in's metagaming isn't the appropriate one... WBL is. Because nothing removes WBL faster than a sunder happy GM. Give it a bit of time and all your 15th level heroes will have left is a rusty orc iron short sword and some stale rations. Not what they are expected to have to face the sort of challenges a 15th level group should face.
Them sunder taxes are expensive.
I'm sure that's a great point, Aranna ... but I don't know for what WBL stands.
Wealth by level The game expects you to have so much money at what time and to have invested so much of gold into various things.
We sometimes refer to this as the magic item treadmill, because it reduces the value of your new items because they are replaced quickly and your actually expected to have them to keep up.