One of my PC is a fighter, with a great sword and choose imrove suder.
His stat are :
BAB 28/23/18 and make 2d6+19 damage.
How a magic weapon can resist to him when he wants to sunder it? Even if it's a +2 weapon, the hardness is only about 14 and has only 30hp.
2 questions:
- Making a sunder is as part of an attack roll, it can't be done during a full round action?
- During a sunder, he can't use a vital strike, can he?
With hardness, you subtract that number from any damage that the object would take. Hardness 14 is pretty good. The best defense against sundering is for the opponent to have a good Combat Maneuver Defense.
You can replace one of the attacks in a full-attack with a sunder attempt. You can, if you want, replace all of the attacks in a full-attack with a sunder attempt. You can also cleave on a charge. How sundering interacts with special attack actions, such as cleave, is less clear.
How vital strike works is even less clear. Just kidding. This is not an official ruling in any way, but rather me telling you how I would rule it in my games. I say again, this is not an official RAW ruling. I would allow vital strike to apply to a sunder attempt if the attack would otherwise qualify for vital strike.
You are right. I meant "sunder on a charge". I added that line in after the line about cleave and sunder, which might explain the error.
of course one of the things that may prevent the PC from sundering every magic weapon in sight is that by doing so he is destroying a good bit of the treasure value that the party should be receiving... and that will lead to the party being weaker over-all in the long run.
I also would allow it. Consider the warrior knows his swords, and where they might be weak.
And if you are worried about Sundering, give the bbeg a second weapon! lol I built an BBEG whose sole purpose was to Sunder the pc barbarians sword. However, the first hit he only did enough damage to give the sword the 'broken' condition. the pc barbarian got mad, raged, and attempted his own sunder, with Power Attack, and absolutely NO sunder feats, and he ended up Sundering the sunderer who had attempted to do the sundering in the first place.
If you as a GM make Sunder powerful, your pc's will start sundering left and right.
as a soldier in the military I always carried a backup weapon (Sigh, I miss my korean war era m1911), and I always have one or two backup weapons on the npc's.
of course one of the things that may prevent the PC from sundering every magic weapon in sight is that by doing so he is destroying a good bit of the treasure value that the party should be receiving... and that will lead to the party being weaker over-all in the long run.
Actually, the "sunderer" decides whether the item is destroyed or just receives the "broken" condition. It's not anywhere near as pyrrhic as it used to be.
It can be done as part of any attack. IF vital strike is used (which I wouldn't allow, cause of the name of the feat and the fact that sundering assumes you are using it on an object) He can only do it once per round.
Furthermore, Vital strike is a standard action and theoretically you can't use it with a combat maneuver, as you can't use cleave, cause on itself it's a very specific action.
It's fair to remember that, if a guy has a weapon that has a +1 better weapon than the sunderer, the sunder cannot happen. And the use is wasted.
It's fair to remember that, if a guy has a weapon that has a +1 better weapon than the sunderer, the sunder cannot happen. And the use is wasted.
Ugh.. I'm having trouble finding this rule. Do you have a reference to the page number or a link to it in the SRD?
|
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 struck.
Also of note:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cleave an attack action of sorts? Isn't Vital Strike one as well?
And before you get into the idea that "attack action" is one specific action, I'd argue that any action that is a melee attack should work as it is an action that is an attack.Even if you don't agree with that interpretation, Vital Strike is called out specifically as "an attack action" meaning that it most definitely can (by RAW) be used for sundering. Note that vital strike makes no mention of an expected category of target, only that you deal more damage by making a single focused attack rather than a flurry of less focused attacks.
Basically, Vital Strike Sunder away! As long as their weapon's enhancement bonus is less than or equal to yours!
Weird Note: The book makes no special mention of defensive properties of armor similar to those of weapons, meaning a non-magical weapon could destroy a +5 armor (with effort, given the hardness and HP). I'd say it's ripe for a house-rulin'.
i would also suggest that you go with an Adamantine weapon since it bypasses hardness.
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 struck.
Thanks a lot! You're right!
|
|
You can't sunder armor.
Weird Note: The book makes no special mention of defensive properties of armor similar to those of weapons, meaning a non-magical weapon could destroy a +5 armor (with effort, given the hardness and HP). I'd say it's ripe for a house-rulin'.
Not sure if you read my earlier quote, but the sunder action says that you can sunder any item held or worn by your opponent. That includes armor.
...
You can't sunder armor.
Couldn't in 3.5, can in PRG (IIRC).
3.5 and PRG allow any weapon to sunder any other weapon, regardless of the magical properties of any of the weapons involved.
Thus, a nonmagic, nonmasterwork longsword could in theory sunder a +5 vorpal greatsword.
In 3.0 the weapon used in the attack needed to equal or exceed the enhancement bonus of the target weapon; thus in 3.0 a +2 weapon could be sundered by another +2 or better weapon but not by a +1 weapon. This was changed in 3.5 as set out above.
|
3.5 and PRG allow any weapon to sunder any other weapon, regardless of the magical properties of any of the weapons involved.
Thus, a nonmagic, nonmasterwork longsword could in theory sunder a +5 vorpal greatsword.
In 3.0 the weapon used in the attack needed to equal or exceed the enhancement bonus of the target weapon; thus in 3.0 a +2 weapon could be sundered by another +2 or better weapon but not by a +1 weapon. This was changed in 3.5 as set out above.
Damaging Magic Weapons: 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 struck.
Wrong Father
3.5 and PRG allow any weapon to sunder any other weapon, regardless of the magical properties of any of the weapons involved.
Thus, a nonmagic, nonmasterwork longsword could in theory sunder a +5 vorpal greatsword.
The good Father is mistaken. As was pointed out above:
Damaging Magic Weapons: 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 struck.
Pathfinder Core, p 468.
Edit: Ninja'd
So, give your BBEG's main weapon the following property:
Railroad Reinforcement: "Whenever a player attempts to Sunder this weapon, increase the weapon's enhancement bonus to X+1, where X is equal to the sundering player's weapon enhancement bonus."
and you should be good.
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 struck.Also of note:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cleave an attack action of sorts? Isn't Vital Strike one as well?
And before you get into the idea that "attack action" is one specific action, I'd argue that any action that is a melee attack should work as it is an action that is an attack.
Even if you don't agree with that interpretation, Vital Strike is called out specifically as "an attack action" meaning that it most definitely can (by RAW) be used for sundering. Note that vital strike makes no mention of an expected category of target, only that you deal more damage by making a single focused attack rather than a flurry of less focused attacks.Basically, Vital Strike Sunder away! As long as their weapon's enhancement bonus is less than or equal to yours!
Weird Note: The book makes no special mention of defensive properties of armor similar to those of weapons, meaning a non-magical weapon could destroy a +5 armor (with effort, given the hardness and HP). I'd say it's ripe for a house-rulin'.
It has been stated by Paizo, that Cleave and Vital strikes are Standard actions. And they do not stack with each other, it's pretty fair to assume it wouldn't work on objects, mostly because of the flavor, but that's just me. Even if it IS used, it can be done only as a standard action.
|
|
It has been stated by Paizo, that Cleave and Vital strikes are Standard actions. And they do not stack with each other, it's pretty fair to assume it wouldn't work on objects, mostly because of the flavor, but that's just me. Even if it IS used, it can be done only as a standard action.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 struck.Also of note:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cleave an attack action of sorts? Isn't Vital Strike one as well?
And before you get into the idea that "attack action" is one specific action, I'd argue that any action that is a melee attack should work as it is an action that is an attack.
Even if you don't agree with that interpretation, Vital Strike is called out specifically as "an attack action" meaning that it most definitely can (by RAW) be used for sundering. Note that vital strike makes no mention of an expected category of target, only that you deal more damage by making a single focused attack rather than a flurry of less focused attacks.Basically, Vital Strike Sunder away! As long as their weapon's enhancement bonus is less than or equal to yours!
Weird Note: The book makes no special mention of defensive properties of armor similar to those of weapons, meaning a non-magical weapon could destroy a +5 armor (with effort, given the hardness and HP). I'd say it's ripe for a house-rulin'.
Umm... I don't remember saying anything about using cleave and vital strike together. I said cleave + sunder and vital strike + sunder. And yes they would be standard actions, of course, but still possible.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
3.5 and PRG allow any weapon to sunder any other weapon, regardless of the magical properties of any of the weapons involved.
Thus, a nonmagic, nonmasterwork longsword could in theory sunder a +5 vorpal greatsword.
In 3.0 the weapon used in the attack needed to equal or exceed the enhancement bonus of the target weapon; thus in 3.0 a +2 weapon could be sundered by another +2 or better weapon but not by a +1 weapon. This was changed in 3.5 as set out above.
Damaging Magic Weapons: 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 struck.Wrong Father
It's slightly confusing, though: in 3.5, the rules had the same sentence until it was removed via errata. So it's not totally clear whether PFRPG is intentionally supposed to agree with the 3.0 rules, or whether it's supposed to agree with the 3.5 rules and they forgot to apply the errata.
I would guess it could well be an intentional reversion to 3.0, but I'm not sure it is.
/threadjack
If I pick up a cursed weapon, can one of my fellow adventurers (preferably one with a powerful melee weapon) sunder it so I can remove it? We very nearly had this happen recently, and while we have ready access to remove curse, this thread made me think of sundering as an alternative means for parties that don't have ready access to remove curse. Just curious.
/end threadjack
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cleave an attack action of sorts? Isn't Vital Strike one as well?
Sorry no. Cleave is it's own action, in the same way Ready and Feint are their own actions.
And before you get into the idea that "attack action" is one specific action, I'd argue that any action that is a melee attack should work as it is an action that is an attack.
You can argue it, but it's not how the rules work RAW. The Attack and Full Attack action have been distinct, specific actions since 3rd edition.
Even if you don't agree with that interpretation, Vital Strike is called out specifically as "an attack action" meaning that it most definitely can (by RAW) be used for sundering. Note that vital strike makes no mention of an expected category of target, only that you deal more damage by making a single focused attack rather than a flurry of less focused attacks.
Since both Sunder and Vital Strike both modify the standard attack action, they should work together, by RAW at least.
Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Because Vital strike has been stated to work EXACTLY like Cleave. And is it's own action too.
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
|
|
Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Because Vital strike has been stated to work EXACTLY like Cleave. And is it's own action too.
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
And where exactly was this change stated? Cause my book calls it an attack action and we don't have an errata on it (that I've seen anyway).
And where exactly was this change stated? Cause my book calls it an attack action and we don't have an errata on it (that I've seen anyway).Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Because Vital strike has been stated to work EXACTLY like Cleave. And is it's own action too.
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
That clarification was posted by Jason if I remember right, it's on the PFSRD but there is no link to the original post. It was a discussion about Vital strike working with cleave, charge and with spring attack. But I can't seen to find the post. But it does exist. Ig your search-fu is better than mine, which is easy, you might be able to find it.
That clarification was posted by Jason if I remember right, it's on the PFSRD but there is no link to the original post. It was a discussion about Vital strike working with cleave, charge and with spring attack. But I can't seen to find the post. But it does exist. Ig your search-fu is better than mine, which is easy, you might be able to find it.
There have been various conflicting explanations of vital strike, some from Jason, some from James. None of which seem to include the language the pfsrd includes as a "clarification." The FAQ does have some of the actual quotes from the developers, and at least in the quotes from James (who I think is more the hard rules guy?) the details about attack actions, full attack actions, and the other other action types (and how they interact with Vital Strike) is pretty clear.
Leaving all of that aside, the same language that seems to throw people for such a loop in Vital Strike was used in 3rd edition and 3.5 in spring attack and other feats. The action types, including Attack and Full Attack, have used substantively the same language since 3rd edition.
|
|
That clarification was posted by Jason if I remember right, it's on the PFSRD but there is no link to the original post. It was a discussion about Vital strike working with cleave, charge and with spring attack. But I can't seen to find the post. But it does exist. Ig your search-fu is better than mine, which is easy, you might be able to find it.And where exactly was this change stated? Cause my book calls it an attack action and we don't have an errata on it (that I've seen anyway).Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Because Vital strike has been stated to work EXACTLY like Cleave. And is it's own action too.
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Um I just checked the Pathfinder SRD and couldn't find anything saying that it was a standard action. Are you talking about the unofficial SRD that is run by one of the board members?
EDIT: Nope, just checked it as well, no reference to vital strike as a standard action, both just say as part of an attack action. So I have seen no evidence to support what you are saying.
That clarification was posted by Jason if I remember right, it's on the PFSRD but there is no link to the original post. It was a discussion about Vital strike working with cleave, charge and with spring attack. But I can't seen to find the post. But it does exist. Ig your search-fu is better than mine, which is easy, you might be able to find it.And where exactly was this change stated? Cause my book calls it an attack action and we don't have an errata on it (that I've seen anyway).Correct. I don't see any reason why, by the RAW, Vital Strike and Sunder couldn't be combined.
Because Vital strike has been stated to work EXACTLY like Cleave. And is it's own action too.
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Um I just checked the Pathfinder SRD and couldn't find anything saying that it was a standard action. Are you talking about the unofficial SRD that is run by one of the board members?
EDIT: Nope, just checked it as well, no reference to vital strike as a standard action, both just say as part of an attack action. So I have seen no evidence to support what you are saying.
The might have been talking about the unofficial FAQ found >>HERE<<. Though I don't see that exact quote there.
On the same link cw posted is this line
"Q: Can you combine Cleave and Vital Strike?
A: Both of these feats now require a standard action to use and as you only get one per round you can not combine the two feats. [Source] "
Bolded the relevant part
On the same link cw posted is this line
"Q: Can you combine Cleave and Vital Strike?
A: Both of these feats now require a standard action to use and as you only get one per round you can not combine the two feats. [Source] "Bolded the relevant part
Did you happen to notice that the source link on that one goes nowhere, and the quote/ruling is unattributed? PFSRD and the Pathfinder FAQ aren't official in any way, and you should probably keep that in mind and take it all with a grain of salt.
EDIT: This is not to say the PFSRD isn't useful as hell, and a great source of searchable info, just that it is not an authoritative source you can use to back up an argument about the rules.
On the same link cw posted is this line
"Q: Can you combine Cleave and Vital Strike?
A: Both of these feats now require a standard action to use and as you only get one per round you can not combine the two feats. [Source] "Bolded the relevant part
Did you happen to notice that the source link on that one goes nowhere, and the quote/ruling is unattributed? PFSRD and the Pathfinder FAQ aren't official in any way, and you should probably keep that in mind and take it all with a grain of salt.
EDIT: This is not to say the PFSRD isn't useful as hell, and a great source of searchable info, just that it is not an authoritative source you can use to back up an argument about the rules.
I know mate, but I REMEMBER that argument, just can't find it.
I know mate, but I REMEMBER that argument, just can't find it.
It's possible someone said that at some point, but without the original source, we have no idea what the context was, or if they were offering it as a semi-official answer.
As far as I know Jason has always referenced the attack action language, meaning you could not use it with Charge or Cleave (as they are their own action types) but you could use it with other feats that modify the basic Attack Action (such as spring attack) and in combination with maneuvers that replace melee attacks (such as Sunder). The latest post from James seems to back this up, as he eventually came around to essentially the same position (No on Cleave, Yes on Spring Attack, etc.)
EDIT: Switched Jason and James, too many J's, A's, and S's!
Did you happen to notice that the source link on that one goes nowhere, and the quote/ruling is unattributed? PFSRD and the Pathfinder FAQ aren't official in any way, and you should probably keep that in mind and take it all with a grain of salt.
Hm? I found a number of links that seemed to work:
"Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action." -- Jason Bulmahn
Are you looking for something even more specific?
well in that link he specifically says it can be used with spring attack, but not cleave or charge, so that is a bit wonky.
I agree -- some of the off-the-cuff "official" rulings I've seen strike me as a bit wonky, too.
Did you happen to notice that the source link on that one goes nowhere, and the quote/ruling is unattributed? PFSRD and the Pathfinder FAQ aren't official in any way, and you should probably keep that in mind and take it all with a grain of salt.Hm? I found a number of links that seemed to work:
"Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action." -- Jason Bulmahn
Are you looking for something even more specific?
Actually, yes. Considering the other quote was being presented as an authoritative source, I'd really like to find the original source on that quote.
As for the two you've presented here. The first references the Attack action (which would mean it works with Sunder exactly the way I've been saying), and the second is an older quote (and a quote which James has reversed himself on since then).
As for the two you've presented here. The first references the Attack action (which would mean it works with Sunder exactly the way I've been saying), and the second is an older quote (and a quote which James has reversed himself on since then).
Ah. I think if you're looking for a waffle-proof answer, you might be waiting a long time... :-/
Ah. I think if you're looking for a waffle-proof answer, you might be waiting a long time... :-/
Heh, I didn't say I was looking for a waffle proof answer, I just pointed out that the wafflee has since waffled in the other direction, so we should perhaps disregard the older quote.
LONG EDIT:
Personally I think the rules are pretty damn clear as they stand on this (although obviously a lot of people disagree.)
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage...
So Vital Strike either modifies or is an Attack action.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
And Sunder can, unambiguously, be used to replace a melee attack anytime you use an Attack Action.
There might be some ambiguity surrounding whether or not Spring Attack could be used with Vital Strike, because of the change in the spring attack wording. There is absolutely none regarding Sunder.
/threadjack
If I pick up a cursed weapon, can one of my fellow adventurers (preferably one with a powerful melee weapon) sunder it so I can remove it? We very nearly had this happen recently, and while we have ready access to remove curse, this thread made me think of sundering as an alternative means for parties that don't have ready access to remove curse. Just curious.
/end threadjack
I don't see why not, although they'd need a weapon more powerfully magical than the curse.
You sure showed him.
And while we're here, make whole fixes the whole destroying your own treasure thing. It also makes rust monsters a lot less terrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while we're here, make whole fixes the whole destroying your own treasure thing. It also makes rust monsters a lot less terrifying.
They are still terrifying.
Just look at them.
I mean, not rules-wise, I literally mean LOOK at them.
Gross bug things. Ick.