Might be too powerful IMO. For one feat you're getting a) a free sunder attempt with critical hits; and b) a bonus to damage on sunder that more than doubles the power attack rule (+1 per +4 BAB).
Thinking about it, it might not be too bad considering that bludgeoning weapons have 20*2 critical, if you gave the bonus to damage parallel to power attack.
|
I wouldn't take this feat ever, for the very same reasons as I wouldn't take the Improved Sunder tree:
a) combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them,
b) many opponents don't use armor anyway (anything non-humanoid ?)
c) attack bonus scales up faster than AC, so reducing AC isn't usually making any difference.
After coming face-to-face with a raging Barbarian who sundered with an adamantine greataxe, i'll disagree with point a. After all our weapons had been destroyed and being picked off 1 by 1 with no hope of hurting him, i finally saw the wisdom of the sunderer. He even sundered the six daggers i had as a back up. And with the Make Whole spell there's no downside. Of course if you're gonna kill them in the one or two hits that it would take to sunder their weapon then, yeh.
Point b & c i'll agree with tho.
|
|
A melee-focused level 11 character can easily have an attack bonus above +20 (for starters it's +11 BAB, +6-8 attribute, +3-4 enhancement, +2 focus feats). Buff up, flank it, hit it.
Right, that leaves us with sundering weapons, and the fact that Pathfinder unfortunately retains the moronic 3.5 rule that you cannot sunder a magical weapon unless your enhancement bonus exceeds that of the weapon being sundered.
Sunders are nice for occasional situational utility, but they are just not worth sinking your feats into unless you're a Fighter and you already have all the must-have feats.
So, you can assume that an 11th lvl fighter? is gonna have a Str of 26 (at least), they've got a +3 Earthbreaker and assuming that their sunder attempt is successful after critical hit.
Remembering everything's doubled.
4d6 = 14 (avg)
Str = 24
Enhancement = 6
W/Spec. = 4
Power Attack= 4
C/Critical = 10
=62 pts of dmg. (avg)
52 min
72 max.
average hit - 16 hardness = 46 hp down. So, maybe not overpowered, but be aware that the Crushing Critical dmg will also be doubled, murky territory - your call as DM.
What's wrong with just Imp Sunder & P/Attack?
|
|
What's stopping is that AC bonuses and buffing go up far slower than Attack bonus buffing. Attack bonus benefits from your level (BAB), one easily achieved condition (flanking), several class features (Fgt: weapon mastery, Brb: rage, Pal: smote, Rngr: fav. enemy, Bard: courage), and much more, not to say that majority of spell buffs. AC on the other hand, benefits from far fewer improvements.
I would have to ask, why just a crushing weapon? A slashing weapon could do this as well.
Not quite sure how an 11th level character can have 24-26 strength or where that 24 strength gives him 24 damage? As for the Imp Sunder/PA combo, you have to choose, sunder or damage to opponent. With CC you get both.HH
starting STR 20 (18 + 2 racial)
+6 belt
+2 levelsHey, we're at 28 !
Fair enough. I'm kind of of the opinion that those Belts/Headbands are rather underpriced by a fair margin given what they do and what the tomes that give you +1 AP bonus cost. Yeah I know, you need to wear them all the time, but when was the last time a GM called you on that?
But that's another argument for another time. So yes, as the rules stand now, you could definitely get up there in Strength. But the fact still remains that you get both damage to your opponent and to his armour in one shot with this feat.
HH
I was being conservative giving him a +4 Belt. 26 Strength is a mod of +8; times 1.5 for holding his weapon 2 handed; doubled for crit = 24.
The tomes are exceedingly expensive because they give an inherent bonus rather than an enhancement bonus.
A melee-focused level 11 character can easily have an attack bonus above +20 (for starters it's +11 BAB, +6-8 attribute, +3-4 enhancement, +2 focus feats). Buff up, flank it, hit it.
Right, that leaves us with sundering weapons, and the fact that Pathfinder unfortunately retains the moronic 3.5 rule that you cannot sunder a magical weapon unless your enhancement bonus exceeds that of the weapon being sundered.
Sunders are nice for occasional situational utility, but they are just not worth sinking your feats into unless you're a Fighter and you already have all the must-have feats.
Actually due to the way they work in Pathfinder your -10 attack rolls are best used to do fancy stuff like this.
Also here's the Pathfinder version of my favorite unique weapon:
Aura strong evocation; CL 13th Slot none; Price 4,315 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
This intimidating weapon appears to be a longsword with multiple hooks, barbs, and serrations along the blade, excellent for catching and sundering a foe's weapon. Wielders without the Improved Sunder feat use a shatterspike as a +1 longsword only. Wielders with the Improved Sunder feat instead use shatterspike as a +4 longsword when attempting to sunder an opponent's weapon. Shatterspike can damage weapons with an enhancement bonus of +4 or lower.
Construction Requirements Str 13, Craft Arms and Armor, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, shatter; Cost 2,315 gp
That's +4 to damage when sundering weapons. The 3.5 version was infinitely better, GIVING improved sunder to you and if you had it a +4 to damage as well as dealing extra damage to the weapon.
Keep in mind if you have two of these you can use all the off handed attacks to attack CMD and with Greater Sunder completely ignore their AC, going for magic equipment to debuff them. If they're wearing light armor, take an offhand attack to destroy that in one hit. Ask your GM to let it be enchanted (Mine was fine with it) and throw spell storing on it with a damage spell that affects objects (half damage is better than none).
Doing "Fancy stuff" to foes prevents damage, which is something almost no one ever does (tripping for example stops full attacks). In PF this is amazing because weapons have the same HP regardless of size and even if they have more they don't have any more hardness aside from magical weapons. At 2+ hits a round that's one round where you eat a weapon with two shatter spikes, stopping all damage the target does. For one on one fights this is amazing. Fire Giants actually like to fight in melee, trying to go for the casters and so they can quickly slay the fighters. Unfortunately, Sir Shatterspikes downs his weapon in one round so that's the end of that.
Now here's the thing: You can take a sunder in place of an attack. Any penalties apply so we're at a -2 (+2/4 from feats, so meh). The question here is if your BAB at the CURRENT attack applies (And it's not a penalty). Because if not, Sundering with my left hand at -4 at secondary attacks. If yes, this becomes not nearly as broken. However, RAW (Doubtful as intended) my -10 attacks actually have a use since I can sunder with them at only a -4.
Average damage for a two-weapon fighter stacking strength (started 17+2, current 22) at 6th level with two of these is 1d8+10 per hit, no power attack, +12 to hit primary +10 to hit secondary. With this build you're best off starting turn one walking up, two-handing the shatterspike and breaking their stuff, then drawing another and two-weaponing it. Each hit to a weapon deals 1d8+13 basic damage, plus power attack bonuses. At this level, average damage is 21.5 from a power attack sunder, 17.5 without. Two hits and a +1 weapon is out of commission. A regular weapon is done with power attack unless you roll a 1 or 2 on the damage. The bonus to sunder is +20/+18 since shatterspike acts as a +4 weapon. This can usually kill an 8th level fighter's one-handed weapon in one round unless he has a +2 weapon: Then power attack becomes necessary and a bit of a gamble. I would suggest wielding one weapon with two hands in that case to raise the damage on weapon hit to 26.5. If both attacks hit the Hardness 14 weapon takes an average of 25 damage, breaking a two hander and destroying a one-hander. If it's wooden hafted this just becomes silly and they lose. If you don't destroy it it's going to be broken in all likelihood on two of these attacks hitting.
At high level, you get an Adamantine weapon and deal a ton more damage. IF the DM is nice at 6th level you can make a shatterspike adamantine for just +3000. Bypass all hardness below 20 (which only a +5 metal weapon that you can't sunder anyway) and deals all that damage straight to the weapon/object's HP. With that you can sunder armor effectively (Non-magical armor anyway) using a longsword as per usual. At 6th level that's a 37.5% chance to sunder a +2 weapon. Almost no monsters aside from high-level stuff have magic weapons (specifically the Balor which has two +1 weapons :D just in case it tries to be smart)
Adamantine stuff also has another good use: Getting out of wall traps/walled areas in general. Bypass all hardness below 20 and take out walls like the Incredible Hulk (tm). Barbarian is actually a good mix with this build since the rage gives a bonus to strength and con (Two very important stats), and fast movement which is a big help if you're in medium armor. Doing a full multi-class if you're willing to wait a bit to grab Greater Sunder is a good plan if you want to grab the Strength Surge ability and maybe some other not as good power.
Plus, you don't have to sunder all the time. The feat list for this is as follows:
1. Power Attack, Improved Sunder, TWF
2. Weapon Focus (longsword)
3. Double Slice
4. Weapon Specialization (longsword)
5. Cleave
6. Greater Sunder
Out of 8 feats I used 2 for this tree. And done by level 6.
/total derailment
I do agree though: Unless you're at least 50% fighter you will have a hard time doing this. A Barbarian can actually do OK with this, but not as well (big surprise). If you try to do this as Ranger or Rogue, WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO MAKE A MISTAKE. This build really only works one way, and that's my way or with force damage (Ignored harndess in 3.5, couldn't find it in pathfinder).
In other news I would totally blunt an adamantine longsword if I could qualify for that feat. Mmm, delicious no armor.
Also the following applies on Mending in case you were considering repairing things you completely destroy:
Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities.
So if your DM likes to throw a lot of the treasure out as +1 weapons and whatnot, you might catch some flak for doing this. If so, eh, it's just two feats. The perfect two weapon fighter just gets to his destination later without them.
I hope you enjoy that part above because it took me two hours to do. Now get on with the feat discussion.
Remember that items are immune to critical hits.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html
Edit: Having said that, I'd have no problems with the feat other than to eliminate the bonus to damage. Armor might have some hp, but I don't think it should be torn up in what will potentially amount to one massive blow, maybe 2. Also, shields I think should be fair targets.
I would have to ask, why just a crushing weapon? A slashing weapon could do this as well.Technically true, but as you can see by the initial message in this thread, I suggested this feat to give bludgeoning weapons more weapon type specific feats as there are already many sharp/pointed/ranged weapon feats.
I understand that, but unfortunately real life, and hence verisimilitude, don't bear this out; some weapons are just better than others. Blunt weapons are not among the most effective, but they are among the simplest to use and the cheapest to obtain. Edged weapons are among the most expensive and the best to use, if they weren't they wouldn't be worth the cost.
I wouldn't take this feat ever, for the very same reasons as I wouldn't take the Improved Sunder tree:
a) combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them...
All the three factors are disadvantegous enough to warrant the price difference. Once you read the tome there is no way in the game to rob you of your attribute bonus, while the belt can be disabled in several ways, and keeps you from equipping any other magic item on the slot.
But if combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them then your belt would never get stolen, sundered, dispelled, etc. will it?
I wouldn't take this feat ever, for the very same reasons as I wouldn't take the Improved Sunder tree:
a) combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them,
b) many opponents don't use armor anyway (anything non-humanoid ?)
c) attack bonus scales up faster than AC, so reducing AC isn't usually making any difference.
One note: this feat lets you do something in addition to killing them. It's a rider on you scoring a crit with a bonky weapon. Your other comments are still valid concerns. I see it as good for a combat cleric or other PC who lacks full BAB.
|
|
I wouldn't take this feat ever, for the very same reasons as I wouldn't take the Improved Sunder tree:
a) combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them...
All the three factors are disadvantegous enough to warrant the price difference. Once you read the tome there is no way in the game to rob you of your attribute bonus, while the belt can be disabled in several ways, and keeps you from equipping any other magic item on the slot.But if combat is about killing enemies, not doing fancy things to them then your belt would never get stolen, sundered, dispelled, etc. will it?
For PCs, yes. Sundering an item carried by a NPC:
a) won't hurt him in a long run (he's likely to be defeated anyway)
b) actually hurts the players, since it forces you to repair your loot
On the other hand, doing fancy things to PCs is a valid tactic because:
a) hurts in a long run (guuuys, we need to head back to the town so I can replace my +5 vorpal greatsword)
b) actually hurts the players, because it forces them to recover from item damage/conditions
D&D combat is asymetric. There are things that hurt the PCs more than they hurt the NPCs. 3.5 poison was a prime example of this.
Therefore, if I am to choose between a feat that will force me to run around after somebody with mending/make whole and a feat that will help me get the job done and the loot intact, I'll go with the second option :)
For PCs, yes. Sundering an item carried by a NPC:a) won't hurt him in a long run (he's likely to be defeated anyway)
b) actually hurts the players, since it forces you to repair your lootOn the other hand, doing fancy things to PCs is a valid tactic because:
a) hurts in a long run (guuuys, we need to head back to the town so I can replace my +5 vorpal greatsword)
b) actually hurts the players, because it forces them to recover from item damage/conditionsD&D combat is asymetric. There are things that hurt the PCs more than they hurt the NPCs. 3.5 poison was a prime example of this.
O, see I'm to stupid to put 2 things together, I was under the impression that you didn't think this feat would help anybody.
Real life doesn't account for dragons either :) Like I said, I'm trying to add to feats specifically for bludgeoning weapons because there is a lack of those in the Combat Feats list. I don't feel inclined to change that premise.I understand that, but unfortunately real life, and hence verisimilitude, don't bear this out; some weapons are just better than others. Blunt weapons are not among the most effective, but they are among the simplest to use and the cheapest to obtain. Edged weapons are among the most expensive and the best to use, if they weren't they wouldn't be worth the cost.I would have to ask, why just a crushing weapon? A slashing weapon could do this as well.Technically true, but as you can see by the initial message in this thread, I suggested this feat to give bludgeoning weapons more weapon type specific feats as there are already many sharp/pointed/ranged weapon feats.
I get that, but if I wanted to play a game with no relation to reality at all, I'd play 4e. Blunt weapons already have many advantages over edged ones - cheap, available, simple to use. They just aren't combat advantages is all.
Can you explain to me how a club can break armour while an axe can't?
No one is stopping you from designing a feat of your own should you wish. :) However, this feat, which I designed, is staying a bludgeoning weapon feat for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Fair enough <shrugs> it makes as much sense as a feat that enables wielders of blunt weapons to fly, but if that floats your boat ...
Why not just make it bludgeoning or slashing? You use the same 9 attack motions with both types.
It sounds much better!
If I wanted a feat for blunt weapons only, it could be something like 'Stunning Blow' (in the Stunning Fist feat tree) that allows you to apply a stunning fist through a blunt weapon (handy for a monk with a staff). Or in the same vein, 'Grappling Staff' - enable you to use a grapple with the aid of a stick or staff (seriously doable IRL too).
Slashing would take in swords which is something I wanted to avoid at all costs (another feat for swords in a list of feat littered with them).
HH
Ya but you can sunder armor with a slashing weapon too. Just because the game is already "littered" with feats for a swordsman to take doesn't mean you can't make this work for them too if they want it. Besides most people that are using bludgeoning weapons don't take critical feats because most of them only have a x2 or x3 critical multiplier and people that take take critical feats usually prefer weapons with at least a 19-20x2 modifier.
Which leads me to another question, admittedly asking out of ignorance. Is there an enchantment that doubles Crit range on a given weapon (IE spell or magical weapon ability)? I'm guessing no because it would probably stack with Improved Crit which if a weapon had 19-20 x2 to begin with would give you a Crit range of 12-20 which is broken beyond belief. However would it make any sense to offer it as something applicable only to weapons that had a 20 Crit Range normally? I mean there are things which raise your damage multiplier already for those that start at x2.
HH
Consult the Core rulebook and you'll find the keen edge spell. Doesn't stack with Improved Critical in Pathfinder, though it did in 3.0.
There's also Weapon of Impact that applies to bludgeoning weapons that's in SC. But i prefer:
DOLOROUS BLOW
Transmutation
Level: Bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Weapon touched
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
A longing for battle fills you as you complete this spell. Upon touching the intended weapon, the feeling fades even as a dull red
aura encompasses the weapon. For the duration of the spell, the
weapon’s threat range is doubled, and its critical threats automatically
confirm, so every threat is a critical hit.
Real life doesn't account for dragons either :) Like I said, I'm trying to add to feats specifically for bludgeoning weapons because there is a lack of those in the Combat Feats list. I don't feel inclined to change that premise.I understand that, but unfortunately real life, and hence verisimilitude, don't bear this out; some weapons are just better than others. Blunt weapons are not among the most effective, but they are among the simplest to use and the cheapest to obtain. Edged weapons are among the most expensive and the best to use, if they weren't they wouldn't be worth the cost.I would have to ask, why just a crushing weapon? A slashing weapon could do this as well.Technically true, but as you can see by the initial message in this thread, I suggested this feat to give bludgeoning weapons more weapon type specific feats as there are already many sharp/pointed/ranged weapon feats.I get that, but if I wanted to play a game with no relation to reality at all, I'd play 4e. Blunt weapons already have many advantages over edged ones - cheap, available, simple to use. They just aren't combat advantages is all.
Can you explain to me how a club can break armour while an axe can't?
The club carries a lot more force than a sword, per se, and there's blunt trauma to think of. An axe is definitely a better choice of weapon (No one is going to argue that the thing heavier than the club isn't better than the club at its job). Blunt weapons also rock socks for hitting things like shields, people, and weapons out of the way of your strikes. Plus they're very durable and bounce back from a hit, returning you to guard on a good strike.
The reason blunt weapons suck in D&D is because in AD&D and prior they were weapons for priests. If the priest had gotten a weapon as good as the longsword, there would have been no reason for anyone to roll fighters aside from a bit more HP, which is irrelevant since the priest has healing spells.
In 3.5 it's a pointless recycled bit that should've been changed. Blunt trauma is a perfectly valid way to kill someone, even in armor. All those good things I said about blunt weapons could be applied here. Maybe even make them crit more often to compensate for the x2? Give them all a free +2 to comfirm critical hits and two handed ones +2 on bull rush attempts.