I've just found out (after years of playing at 3.x) that this horrible (IMHO) rule that was present in 3.0 is still present in 3.5 (and subsequentially, in Pathfinder).
Page 344:
"Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points."
This rule basically throws out of the window the possibility to use effectively Sunder against PCs at all.
Let's take some examples: a Frost Giant is a CR 9 with the Improved Sunder feat and no magic weapons (by SRD). A party would start reasonably to find Frost Giants around 7th level. Now, at 7th level, any character would have at least a +1 weapon; conclusion is, a Frost Giant cannot sunder characters' weapons (or shields, for the matter) at all.
Worse yet, a Frost Giant Jarl (CR 17) has a +2 Frost Greataxe. The enhancement bonus of the weapon is +2; a 15th level character (again, a reasonable moment of his career to find such a creature) has at least a +3 weapon, right? So, no sunder again.
I could go on indefinitely; a Balor (CR 20) has just a +1 Vorpal weapon !!! Again, no Sunder possible !!! And so on, and on, and on...
The thing is even worse for creatures that do not use manufactured weapons, but instead fight with their own body (because a GM could give some share of the treasure a monster has to boost his equipment...). What is the 'enhancement' bonus of a Great Wyrm, a Tyrannosaurus, a Purple Worm - the Tarrasque !?!... Nothing ! At best, we can consider the DR of such creatures; and again, a Great Wyrm has DR 20/magic (which can be considered +1 at best), and cannot cast Greater Magic Fang without using Limited Wish or Wish, since it's not on his spell list! Only the Tarrasque has DR 15/epic, so a GM can consider it +6 (but not as per RAW...)
And, icing the cake, a Monk who fights unarmed cannot sunder a magic weapon at all !!! (what is the 'enhancement bonus' of a Monk's Unarmed Attack ? +1 when he has Ki strike magic ? and then ???...)
This rule COULD have some reason to be in 3.0, where monsters had a DR of X/+1, X/+2, and X/+3 (and later, X/+X in Epic). It could be reasonable to allow them to bypass weapon enhancements as if their natural weapons had an enhancement bonus equal to that of their DR. Now, this is not possible anymore.
I think that it's ridicolous that an hydraulic press can squish an Iron Golem (Terminator-like), but a wooden Quarterstaff +1 blocks it completely. A Storm Giant can break (with some efforts) an Adamantine Heavy Shield, but he cannot break a lousy +1 (Steel )Longsword ? A raging Barbarian can (giving him enough time) dig into the walls of a dungeon, but cannot break with his own hands a lousy +1 Dagger ???
I know that Jason has stated more than once that he hates absolutes, and so do I, so I think that if we are off-time to fix this problem in the final rules, we have to decide either:
1) to eliminate this rule completely
or
2) to add an additional value to the hardness of the item if somebody tries to break it without a weapon with an adequate enhancement bonus (something akin to DR). An additional value of +10 hardness or similar could do.
I personally would go for option number 2) (it seems the most balanced to me).
What are your opinions on the matter?
What's especially silly is that this was errata'ed in 3.5 (removed) and now Pathfinder is putting it back in!
I am not now, nor have I ever been a big fan of shattering a player's gear. It's harsh and often removes a treasured item that the PC earned and has a story to tell about.
But I came from 1st ed, when a failed save verse a fireball could and often did mean the destruction of a handful of your items. A black dragon was feared more for his breath's effect on your gear then a red, because acid saves for most items were just awful and if you had to make them you could be sure you just lost most of your good stuff.
So trust me when I say my character's have felt the sting. On his first trip to the abyss, and trust me he made a habit of going good old Thurgon returned naked, with a large shield and now non-magical mithral sword that had once been his prized flame-tongue. It was a huge drop in magic and power for him, the quest was failed and we barely escaped with our lives. But it also made for a terrific story and a real bonding between our characters. I mean once you've been to the abyss with a guy, faced a demon prince, and made it out alive, well you know you can count on that guy to stand by you against a simple Fire Giant. :)
I would say best thing you can do is instead of adding one to the hardness, add 2 (or even three if it makes sense), makes it very hard to break, but the big baddies will be able to do it. So it makes for pretty strong magic items, but not unbreakable ones.
We need to break off this thread A.S.A.P.!
What's especially silly is that this was errata'ed in 3.5 (removed) and now Pathfinder is putting it back in!
You know, you are completely right. Just double checked the DMG Errata.
The problem is, Beta PFRPG is written with the SRD as a base, and nobody at Wizard got the trouble to fix the SRD as well...
Well, I truly hope that Jason and the others at Paizo noticed this in time, or we are starting to add errata on a (not yet born) edition :( ...
EDIT: this is the text from the DMG Errata for D&D 3.5:
"Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header ( which is the sentence 'An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck' ). Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points."
I've experienced this issue first hand as well in our Age of Worms campaign. I had a Kyuss Knight with a +1 unholy excecutioner's mace attempt to sunder the PC ranger's +4 "ridiculousness against undead" longbow. Our rules lawyer mentioned the rule, and I hand-waived it. It looked rather silly to me that a magical bow can't be sundered by a slashing style weapon (executioner's mace is all 3 types). Needless to say, the blow did damage the bow, but not destroy it.
I like the simple removal of it, with the rest of the rules for magic weapon hardness and hit points standing as is.
this is the text from the DMG Errata for D&D 3.5:
"Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header ( which is the sentence 'An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck' ). Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points."
That works well enough for me.
Magic stuff is stronger, harder to break, but you can do it if you're strong enough and sufficently motivated.
Any chance to know if the official Errata from 3.5 has been integrated into the final version of Pathfinder or (sadly) not ?
Any chance to know if the official Errata from 3.5 has been integrated into the final version of Pathfinder or (sadly) not ?
Most of the known errors that I can think of in the SRD (e.g. referring to 3.0 spells like "random action") have been fixed in the Beta, I think.
If you're really worried, pick a particular errata entry and see if it has been fixed in the Beta document.
If you're really worried, pick a particular errata entry and see if it has been fixed in the Beta document.
Sadly, as you noticed several posts above here, the Beta version had the same errors of the SRD regarding Sundering Magic weapons...
I ask this because now that the Manual has already been printed, we cannot change any misprint anymore (except through a Pathfinder errata).
I see two sides of the issue:
On the other hand,
Maybe we should take a hint from Sean K Reynolds, and instead of total immunity from sundering, provide a really hefty boost to hardness and hp for each inherent "plus" (certainly more than a lousy +1!).
|
I've just found out (after years of playing at 3.x) that this horrible (IMHO) rule that was present in 3.0 is still present in 3.5 (and subsequentially, in Pathfinder).
Page 344:
"Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points."
This rule basically throws out of the window the possibility to use effectively Sunder against PCs at all.
Let's take some examples: a Frost Giant is a CR 9 with the Improved Sunder feat and no magic weapons (by SRD). A party would start reasonably to find Frost Giants around 7th level. Now, at 7th level, any character would have at least a +1 weapon; conclusion is, a Frost Giant cannot sunder characters' weapons (or shields, for the matter) at all.
Worse yet, a Frost Giant Jarl (CR 17) has a +2 Frost Greataxe. The enhancement bonus of the weapon is +2; a 15th level character (again, a reasonable moment of his career to find such a creature) has at least a +3 weapon, right? So, no sunder again.I could go on indefinitely; a Balor (CR 20) has just a +1 Vorpal weapon !!! Again, no Sunder possible !!! And so on, and on, and on...
The thing is even worse for creatures that do not use manufactured weapons, but instead fight with their own body (because a GM could give some share of the treasure a monster has to boost his equipment...). What is the 'enhancement' bonus of a Great Wyrm, a Tyrannosaurus, a Purple Worm - the Tarrasque !?!... Nothing ! At best, we can consider the DR of such creatures; and again, a Great Wyrm has DR 20/magic (which can be considered +1 at best), and cannot cast Greater Magic Fang without using Limited Wish or Wish, since it's not on his spell list! Only the Tarrasque has DR 15/epic, so a GM can consider it +6 (but not as per RAW...)
And, icing the cake, a Monk who fights unarmed...
I'm not sure how I feel about the rule altogether...I wouldn't like my weapons being sundered-but at the same time having the players nervous around the weapon-sundering evil guy raises the stakes too.
In any event-isn't a +2 Frost Axe (as per your example) the equivalent of a +3 item? When you make an item (according to the 3.5 SRD) you have to have a +1 to the weapon already and then add the additional property, which adds to the price and power. The frost property would add +1, Holy items add +2 and Vorpal adds +5. I could be mistaken-but that's how I've always thought of magic items with extra properties.
As far as natural weapons go...there has to be an answer for that too I'd hope.
Be well
Speech
I'm not sure how I feel about the rule altogether...I wouldn't like my weapons being sundered-but at the same time having the players nervous around the weapon-sundering evil guy raises the stakes too.
In any event-isn't a +2 Frost Axe (as per your example) the equivalent of a +3 item? When you make an item (according to the 3.5 SRD) you have to have a +1 to the weapon already and then add the additional property, which adds to the price and power. The frost property would add +1, Holy items add +2 and Vorpal adds +5. I could be mistaken-but that's how I've always thought of magic items with extra properties.
As for the rule in question, it references the weapon's Enhancement bonus, not it's equivalent or adjusted Enhancement bonus. So a +1 Vorpal sword is priced like a +6 weapon, but it still only has an Enhancement bonus of +1.
As for the rule in question, it references the weapon's Enhancement bonus, not it's equivalent or adjusted Enhancement bonus. So a +1 Vorpal sword is priced like a +6 weapon, but it still only has an Enhancement bonus of +1.
Exactly right. Otherwise it doesn't address the +N weapon pricing disparity. A +3 sword, at 18,000+ gp market value, should be worth inherently (in terms of usefulness), just as much as a +1 holy sword. If not, the pricing system is awkwardly askew.
|
As for the rule in question, it references the weapon's Enhancement bonus, not it's equivalent or adjusted Enhancement bonus. So a +1 Vorpal sword is priced like a +6 weapon, but it still only has an Enhancement bonus of +1.Exactly right. Otherwise it doesn't address the +N weapon pricing disparity. A +3 sword, at 18,000+ gp market value, should be worth inherently (in terms of usefulness), just as much as a +1 holy sword. If not, the pricing system is awkwardly askew.
Thanks for making that point Kirth, I actually changed my mind and think the rule makes sense (well with that and the break dr rules +x swords are a lot better for the cost now)
A contradiction:
According to the paragraph "Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons" on page 128, "Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item’s hit points."
According to the paragraph "Hardness and Hit Points" on p344, "Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points."
So what is the hardness/hit points of a +1 keen dagger ? (according to table 8-12 on p129, a light blade starts with a hardness 10 and 2 hit points).
According the errata (as pointed out earlier in this thread), it's +2 hardness per +1 enhancement bonus (not +1 per +1).
It's the hit points and not the hardness that shows the greater disparity. The errata seems to boost the hit points to +10, so the +1 keen dagger would have hardness 11 and 12 hit points, correct ?
Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...
Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...
What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?
Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?
The kind of DM who plays his monsters to win, and who is attacking a flying character with something or someone intelligent enough to realize that those wings look fragile, and the human wearing them will fall hundreds of feet to his death without them.
It's the "win button" for an intelligent flying opponent who wants to win an aerial encounter as easily as possible.
If I were a player, and we were, for example, fighting a dragon a thousand feet above the ground, and that dragon didn't try to disable my very obvious wings of flying, I would accuse my DM of pulling his punches and robbing the game of a reasonable level of expected challenge.
But that's just me.
|
|
Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?The kind of DM who plays his monsters to win, and who is attacking a flying character with something or someone intelligent enough to realize that those wings look fragile, and the human wearing them will fall hundreds of feet to his death without them.
It's the "win button" for an intelligent flying opponent who wants to win an aerial encounter as easily as possible.
If I were a player, and we were, for example, fighting a dragon a thousand feet above the ground, and that dragon didn't try to disable my very obvious wings of flying, I would accuse my DM of pulling his punches and robbing the game of a reasonable level of expected challenge.
But that's just me.
I knew there was a reason I put up with you.
The kind of DM who plays his monsters to win, and who is attacking a flying character with something or someone intelligent enough to realize that those wings look fragile, and the human wearing them will fall hundreds of feet to his death without them.Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?
(P.S. -- I was the DM who did that to Xaaon's character...heh, heh.)
If I were a player, and we were, for example, fighting a dragon a thousand feet above the ground, and that dragon didn't try to disable my very obvious wings of flying, I would accuse my DM of pulling his punches and robbing the game of a reasonable level of expected challenge.
Amen.
Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?The kind of DM who plays his monsters to win, and who is attacking a flying character with something or someone intelligent enough to realize that those wings look fragile, and the human wearing them will fall hundreds of feet to his death without them.
It's the "win button" for an intelligent flying opponent who wants to win an aerial encounter as easily as possible.
If I were a player, and we were, for example, fighting a dragon a thousand feet above the ground, and that dragon didn't try to disable my very obvious wings of flying, I would accuse my DM of pulling his punches and robbing the game of a reasonable level of expected challenge.
But that's just me.
Course if the same player isn't pulling his punches his wizard has already telekinesis a tanglefoot bag or so into that dragons wings to do the dragon first...
"Do unto others, then cut the cards"
(P.S. -- I was the DM who did that to Xaaon's character...heh, heh.)The kind of DM who plays his monsters to win, and who is attacking a flying character with something or someone intelligent enough to realize that those wings look fragile, and the human wearing them will fall hundreds of feet to his death without them.Hopefully there will be some expanded rules on this, as a wings of flying (54k item) is sundered ridiculously easily...What kind of a-hole DM would do that?!?
Indeed, which was what the playtest was about...you can almost sunder a cloak with a sneeze...
Course if the same player isn't pulling his punches his wizard has already telekinesis a tanglefoot bag or so into that dragons wings to do the dragon first..."Do unto others, then cut the cards"
My players did it (to a wyvern) with a monk who specialized in grappling...