I played a duelist in an old 3.5 campaign. My GM had the current bad guy, a big Orc, sunder my Rapier. I was really mad at the time. I'd spent all my money on the masterwork Rapier, and I only had a short sword for backup. I thought it was unfair, because I was so specialized to fight with a Rapier and Short sword, especially in the situation.
We were in the middle of a big forest, far from civilization, and the Orc wasn't even a big bad end guy, but became a minor reoccuring villian. So I had to struggle through the next three or so sessions using a rusty hand axe I'd picked up off a dead Orc, until we could get back to civilization and I could get a new one. I don't remember why, but we couldn't repair it either. We were pretty low level at the time. It really made it hard on us.
For this reason I think you need be careful when you use the tactic. It can really make for some hurt feelings, if used in the wrong circumstances. I was really mad at my GM for a while, when he did it. His reasoning for having the NPC sunder the weapon was valid, but I just felt it was a poor choice as GM in our situation. Least of all because I was really sucking with axe and it made it harder on us because I couldn't hit as well with the axe. Had he done it when I had better access to replace it or fix it, I'd have been upset, but not mad like I was. It would have made the Orc a really good personal villian of my character. As it was I didn't have a strong feeling towards the NPC, just the tactic. I didn't connect with him like I should have.
I struggle with it as in the Rise of the Runelords AP, using Shatter is a trick that is repeatedly gone to with the NPCs. In general the characters have good access to facilities to recover from it, but I still don't like that it is used so much. I don't like using it on my group, but that would require reworking the tactics on some of the villians so that they are still a challenge.
Sunder is a perfectly valid tactic, but it shouldn't be used every game. I have a player who in my monster campaign has a Duerger Duskblade with a +2 Flaming Dwarven Hammer, Adamantine Armor, and Adamantine Shield. He wades in and channels shocking grasp through his hammer, making it a +2 Flaming Shocking hammer. He does tons of damage obviously, and he's hard as heck to hit (AC 31).
Now, the most scared I've ever seen him is the day he ran into a pair of sisters. One was an alchemist (mad as a hatter, ran around the battlefield (enhanced movement) tossing bombs as she cackled like a fiend) and the other sister was an Inquisitor who specialized in defensive manuevers and sundering. Both were kenku bounty hunters (lawful neutral) and had taken on the bounty on the players characters heads.
It was an interesting fight. They were backed up by two minotaurs (who both fought to 75% HP loss and then started walking off, the players were smart enough to let them walk rather than insist on killing them, as the minotaurs would have probably killed someone if forced to fight to the death), two Centaurs (also hired hands, who fought until reduced by 75% HP and then retreated).
The duerger (yes, I'm back to him finally) waded through the minotaurs without much damage, and then hit the Inquisitor. Her first attack against an armed opponent (she'd been fighting the druid and her animal companion until then, so just natural weapons, really sucked for her, she ended up going up against her worst foes, but she made both retreat), and her first act was to sunder his big nasty hammer. She took it to 5hp left (leaving it broken, but not destroyed). The player yelped like a school girl and threw his hammer 60 feet away back behind friendlies so it wouldn't be damaged. The rest of the fight he attacked unarmed with channeled spells into his adamantine shield (and basically got beat all to heck and back, since he was doing junk damage for the most part).
It was great. :)
As to the repairs, I allow the reforging rules to be used for broken items, and also ritual magic to repair (to hit the caster level). They ended up sending the item to a temple for repair and paying 1/8th it's value to repair it.
Sunder isn't mean. Players are just too whiny about their loot.
|
... the party paladin was dealing some serious damage to an enemy dragon with his magical sword. Backed into a corner from the wizard's battlefield control spells and keenly aware that the sword was allowing the paladin to overcome his DR and other ongoing magical protections, the dragon used his vital strike feats and sunder to snap it in half with its powerful jaws--thereby gaining the upper hand against the paladin until the other party members could intervene to save him.
The paladin player was, needless to say, seriously upset to have lost such a powerful tool.
Was I wrong to have done so? Am I not supposed to play ancient dragons as the intelligent beings that they are?
Not at all. I think that is a perfectly appropriate tactic for an intelligent opponent. Especially an ancient dragon.
Like other people said, sundered equipment isn't permanently lost. Even if you can't use "make whole" you can always mend it back together with a 0 level spell and then go re-enchant it. Just drop extra money in the horde to cover the cost of re-enchantment or, if you think that would cause problems, just give the paladin a quest where the reward is re-enchantment (possibly better than before in some way).
There is a ranged sunder feat in one of the 3.5 books, and even if you just use core pathfinder a DM can get to a character if he really wants too. Quickened teleport then sunder works.Yes but given that these are used at range it is very very less likely to happen.You can sunder spell component pouches and holy symbols.Not only that Sundering as DM weakens the fighter types who rely on their weapon while the casters are immune.
Point being its still far less likely to happen at the table, as in, in 18 or so years of playing I have never seen a DM even attempt to sunder spell components, a holy symbol or even a bow. But melee I have seen numerous times...of course you can come up with a hundred ways to do it to support the arguement you are trying to pick...but it is a moot point as the spirit of my post was that it is exponentially more troublesome for fighter types and that you should consider your actions as a DM carefully when you so drastically effect a character.
It might be just me, but red flags start popping up when someone says "you would be better off dying and making a new character than dealing with the power drop of loosing your primary weapon" when we are talking about a tabletop role-playing game. That sentance tells me, pretty bluntly, that story, dialogue, immersion, and world versimilitude take a backseat to character power and optimization.
Anyhow, in my view, if you were using Pathfinder, you probably should have sundered to broken but not destroyed. Broken is a great "nerf" on most weapons, usually enough to turn a fight's balance. Also fits with the dragon wrestling with preserving its own very long life vrs destroying an obviously powerful and valuable item.
And as an aside regarding gear: I once played a fighter a few years back. His name was Marcus, but he is remembered more by the moniker "Captain Sanity". He refused to go on adventures unprepared. He would research as much as he could about an adventure, then assemble appropriate gear. This would go on top of his default selection, which was:
Primary Bastard Sword (his weapon of specialty).
Primary Shield
Warhammer (for bludgeoning damage)
2 Daggers (for grapples, piercing damage)
2 Throwing Axes (for ranged slashing damage)
Light Crossbow (ranged peircing)
Sling and 5 stones (ranged bludgeoning)
And on his horse:
Backup Bastard Swords 1&2 (the last was always non-magical, even at higher level).
Backup Shield
Backup Armor
Backup Light XBow
Backup Warhammer
5 Daggers
5 Throwing Axes
10 Sling Stones
2 Quivers of Bolts
Which was why when the DM ever sundered me (which was fairly often, but I expected it) I felt rewarded for my preparedness rather than punished. To each their own, I guess.
... the party paladin was dealing some serious damage to an enemy dragon with his magical sword. Backed into a corner from the wizard's battlefield control spells and keenly aware that the sword was allowing the paladin to overcome his DR and other ongoing magical protections, the dragon used his vital strike feats and sunder to snap it in half with its powerful jaws--thereby gaining the upper hand against the paladin until the other party members could intervene to save him.
The paladin player was, needless to say, seriously upset to have lost such a powerful tool.
Was I wrong to have done so? Am I not supposed to play ancient dragons as the intelligent beings that they are?
Not at all. I think that is a perfectly appropriate tactic for an intelligent opponent. Especially an ancient dragon.
Like other people said, sundered equipment isn't permanently lost. Even if you can't use "make whole" you can always mend it back together with a 0 level spell and then go re-enchant it. Just drop extra money in the horde to cover the cost of re-enchantment or, if you think that would cause problems, just give the paladin a quest where the reward is re-enchantment (possibly better than before in some way).
I'd say robbing the party blind via creative uses of disarm and readied actions is far more evil than sundering. Sundering under these rules is not the end of the world.
Seems fair to me, the game has become far too reliant on magic weapons anyway. Maybe next time he'll get an adamantine weapon instead.
Actually, one or two of my players go out of their way to get adamantine weapons with all of their characters. Though I've never made a habit of sundering or anything, it just makes them feel safe. They also like that they can hack straight through a stone wall if need be.
Out of curiosity, how could the Dragon sunder the Paladin's Magic Weapon ? What was the enhancement bonus of the weapon itself?
I deliberately excluded the particulars. I find that when I post details on these boards, people have a tendency to get up and arms about the minutae. That is something I wanted to avoid with this thread.
Just know there are a number of ways a dragon could sunder a magical weapon: it could have cast greater magic fang before the battle, or perhaps a quickened dispel magic during the battle, to name a few.
Seems fair to me, the game has become far too reliant on magic weapons anyway. Maybe next time he'll get an adamantine weapon instead.Actually, one or two of my players go out of their way to get adamantine weapons with all of their characters. Though I've never made a habit of sundering or anything, it just makes them feel safe. They also like that they can hack straight through a stone wall if need be.
Out of curiosity, how could the Dragon sunder the Paladin's Magic Weapon ? What was the enhancement bonus of the weapon itself?I deliberately excluded the particulars. I find that when I post details on these boards, people have a tendency to get up and arms about the minutae. That is something I wanted to avoid with this thread.
Just know there are a number of ways a dragon could sunder a magical weapon: it could have cast greater magic fang before the battle, or perhaps a quickened dispel magic during the battle, to name a few.
The minutae(rules) are important. I have a feeling you did not dispel anything or use magic fang, but that is neither here nor there. It is a valid tactic.
The minutae(rules) are important. I have a feeling you did not dispel anything or use magic fang, but that is neither here nor there. It is a valid tactic.
Actually, that's mean, unneeded, and untrue.
All that was needed for the OP was :
I sundered a players weapon, and he cried, was that mean?
He didn't need to include anything else at all, not the dragon, not how the dragon did it, nothing. If he'd said a 14th level evil Fighter sundered the paladin's weapon, would you have bothered asking what + the fighter's weapon had? It's only the fact he mentioned it was a dragon.
As stated, many ways a dragon can sunder.
A) Cast Greater Magic Fang
B) Cast Dispel Magic on the sword.
C) Wear a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists (making his bite +5, which sunders most stuff)
D) Cast anti-magic on an area.
E) Drop an item that nix's magic in an area
F) Gargle a bottle of +5 Oil of Magic Weapon
Those are just a small number of the ways it could be done. In this case, the question is about play philosophy, not rules, and so the rules do not make a difference. You can replace 'Evil Dragon' with 'Evil Necromancer' or 'Evil Fighter' or 'Evil Jester' and the story and question are all still the same, is it mean to sunder players goods.
The answer of course, is no, it's not mean, unless you do it every game. This applies to just about everything you can do. Poisoning, sending an immortal enemy after them, killing their followers and cohorts intentionally, etc. The key is to balance what you do within the rules.
This question reflects a pet peeve of mine that I have with most DMs. They are too scared of upsetting their players to play their enemies to their full extent.
the quick answer to the question is yes, sundering is perfectly acceptable, as is sending in skilled thieves to rob parties foolish enough to sleep in dungeons with little precaution, coup de grace sleeping PCs, having predators swallow PC's whole and fly off with them (that's what they do in reality, and yes the player may have to deal with the 20D6 fall damage once they're out of the gullet), etc...
The bottom line is that when a group of adventurers arrives with the intent on killing you, you're going to use everything you have available to survive and either kill them or get away. That's why adventurer is supposed to be a rare profession, their chances of dying on the job are higher than that of a terrorist. If a PC doesn't die in an adventure you as the DM probably pulled your punches too much. In turn, make sure many of your NPCs interact with adventurer's appropriately. A moderately recent example used in a movie of what I'm referring to is the first 30-45min. in Kingdom of Heaven. The townsfolk stay way out of the way of the crusaders, and in the ambush scene several PCs die. That's the real life of an adventurer.
Too bad most players don't really enjoy the death of their PCs.
There is a fine line between playing the monsters to their full capacity and just being a jerk.
The duerger (yes, I'm back to him finally) waded through the minotaurs without much damage, and then hit the Inquisitor. Her first attack against an armed opponent (she'd been fighting the druid and her animal companion until then, so just natural weapons, really sucked for her, she ended up going up against her worst foes, but she made both retreat), and her first act was to sunder his big nasty hammer. She took it to 5hp left (leaving it broken, but not destroyed). The player yelped like a school girl and threw his hammer 60 feet away back behind friendlies so it wouldn't be damaged. The rest of the fight he attacked unarmed with channeled spells into his adamantine shield (and basically got beat all to heck and back, since he was doing junk damage for the most part).
It was great. :)
And you are still a jerk for that.
Though yes, it was amusing.
(Not the duerger.)
... the party paladin was dealing some serious damage to an enemy dragon with his magical sword. Backed into a corner from the wizard's battlefield control spells and keenly aware that the sword was allowing the paladin to overcome his DR and other ongoing magical protections, the dragon used his vital strike feats and sunder to snap it in half with its powerful jaws--thereby gaining the upper hand against the paladin until the other party members could intervene to save him.
The paladin player was, needless to say, seriously upset to have lost such a powerful tool.
Was I wrong to have done so? Am I not supposed to play ancient dragons as the intelligent beings that they are?
Not at all. I think that is a perfectly appropriate tactic for an intelligent opponent. Especially an ancient dragon.
Like other people said, sundered equipment isn't permanently lost. Even if you can't use "make whole" you can always mend it back together with a 0 level spell and then go re-enchant it. Just drop extra money in the horde to cover the cost of re-enchantment or, if you think that would cause problems, just give the paladin a quest where the reward is re-enchantment (possibly better than before in some way).
I think limited wish or wish should be able to restorea destroyed weapon as well alot better than make whole could.
if nothing else a limited wish to add 5 caster levels for the next casting seems fair ?
I think limited wish or wish should be able to restorea destroyed weapon as well alot better than make whole could.if nothing else a limited wish to add 5 caster levels for the next casting seems fair ?
I could live with that myself. Limited Wish is a 7th level spell. Honestly, a 7th level should be able to outperform a 2nd level spell by a lot.
It was great. :)And you are still a jerk for that.
Though yes, it was amusing.
(Not the duerger.)
Oh come on, a 140 yo battle hardened duerger yelping like a school girl? It was great. :)
I'm disappointed no one has mentioned this yet.
Sundering is a fair tactic. Yes it's not going to be overused, but since repair is easier, I do find it funny when the warrior goes "No! Not my sword! Kill me instead!"
Do you never take the wizard's spellbook, or the cleric's holy symbol?
Thanks for the links. They were awesome.
As to spellbooks and holy symbols...I try not to mess with those unless it is important to the storyline. If I take away a fighters weapon, he hasn't lost much provided he can find another weapon (ANY weapon). In short, he is merely inconvenianced.
A spellcaster's implements on the other hand...take those away and they are wholly crippled until they can get them back. There is a big difference between doing maybe 5 less damage on a hit and not being able to use your primary class feature AT ALL.
I find it perfectly reasonable to have an NPC or monster perform any action that would occur to it, and which would be reasonable given the situation. In the case described, of course an ancient dragon would sunder the weapon. In my case I often have giants smash the heroes swords all to bits whenever possible They're friggin giants after all, smashing stuff is what they do.
If the player cries ignore him and move on. That's not saying beligerently and maliciously destroy things when it doesn't make sense, but when it does, go to town. Players will either accept it as part of a cool encounter or cry and complain incessantly about it. If he does the former, awesome. If the latter, he needs to understand that he doesn't run the adventure, you do, and in adventures you run, NPC's and monsters do whatever makes sense to them. If he can't accept that then either he needs to move on to a group with a different style of DM, or, if you can't afford or don't want to lose him as a player, then you might need to be generous in the future and coddle him a bit.
Personally, I always go with the rule that Magic Weapons have higher hardness and HP than normal weapons (aside from modifiers for Special Materials), and anything/anyone can sunder them. Thats how it was intended. Otherwise a STR 27 Giant couldnt break a measly +1 Sword (which they can easily accomplish).
F) Gargle a bottle of +5 Oil of Magic WeaponFreddie Fighter: Great, the dragon's going to have a minty fresh breath weapon!
Wally Wizard: (makes spellcraft check) Um... That's not mouthwash.
Dragon: *CHOMP!*
*grin*
Sundering in 3.5 was mean and scary. Losing a beloved item can hurt. But in PF, I like that sundering is more lenient and not as downright insane. As a DM, I'm not a afraid to sunder my PC's items. I don't do it often, but when I do, I always make sure to keep the item broken and not destroyed outright. This would allow the players to fix the item with either Mending or Make Whole spells later on.
My players now see sundering as a viable tactic as they too only break items rather than destroy. This solves the 3.5 problem of losing "loot." As long as you're fair (i.e., only break, not destroy) and and don't over do it, I don't view sundering as bad. Everything in moderation after all.
my two copper.
I dislike Sunder so much, I've removed it from my games. Weapons and armor were meant be bashed, bashing them in a special way (in combat) to destroy them doesn't make any sense to me.
If it was effective as PF claims, in history we'd have records of soldiers attacking other soldiers weapons and armor (as opposed to them breaking on a killing blow). Gladiators and duelists would attack each others weapon since combat would last longer than a few rounds. Do any of these things appear? No.
In movies (think Highlander), are they trying to break each others weapons the entire time? Because in any fight that lasts longer than a few rounds, that's THE thing to do. But this is all a matter of opinion.
Since you're using Sunder rules, I think you were severe in destroying his weapon, but perhaps it would have been more fair for you to damage or have it broken. Maybe the dragon wouldn't want to ruin his (potential) loot either?
There are many records of weapons breaking in combat, even of weapons designed to break weapons, and shields in particular got smashed to bits regularly. However, it's usually easier to hit the other guy with your weapon than to try and break his. You resort to breaking his shield to make him easier to hit, or to trying to break his weapon if his guard is too good to get past.
So, back to the Make whole argument here, I haven't found any place that says that the WEAPON's CL is the CL to make it...
"Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite:
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon
must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee
or ranged special weapon abilities."
So, I guess it's double the greatest abilities CL for that weapon, no? If not it should be something of the like.
I dislike Sunder so much, I've removed it from my games. Weapons and armor were meant be bashed, bashing them in a special way (in combat) to destroy them doesn't make any sense to me.
If it was effective as PF claims, in history we'd have records of soldiers attacking other soldiers weapons and armor (as opposed to them breaking on a killing blow). Gladiators and duelists would attack each others weapon since combat would last longer than a few rounds. Do any of these things appear? No.
In real life, people are squishier than their equipment so it generally didn't make as much sense to attack their weapons. Not so in D&D.
Then again, we do have historical accounts of weapons and shields breaking and this would have happened with some frequency because things would have gotten beat up with normal use. Not so in D&D.So I'm thinking too much comparison with the real world goes only so far on this topic.
The minutae(rules) are important. I have a feeling you did not dispel anything or use magic fang, but that is neither here nor there. It is a valid tactic.
Actually, that's mean, unneeded, and untrue.
All that was needed for the OP was :
I sundered a players weapon, and he cried, was that mean?
He didn't need to include anything else at all, not the dragon, not how the dragon did it, nothing. If he'd said a 14th level evil Fighter sundered the paladin's weapon, would you have bothered asking what + the fighter's weapon had? It's only the fact he mentioned it was a dragon.
As stated, many ways a dragon can sunder.
A) Cast Greater Magic Fang
B) Cast Dispel Magic on the sword.
C) Wear a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists (making his bite +5, which sunders most stuff)
D) Cast anti-magic on an area.
E) Drop an item that nix's magic in an area
F) Gargle a bottle of +5 Oil of Magic WeaponThose are just a small number of the ways it could be done. In this case, the question is about play philosophy, not rules, and so the rules do not make a difference. You can replace 'Evil Dragon' with 'Evil Necromancer' or 'Evil Fighter' or 'Evil Jester' and the story and question are all still the same, is it mean to sunder players goods.
The answer of course, is no, it's not mean, unless you do it every game. This applies to just about everything you can do. Poisoning, sending an immortal enemy after them, killing their followers and cohorts intentionally, etc. The key is to balance what you do within the rules.
What is mean? What is unneeded, and what is untrue.
Too bad most players don't really enjoy the death of their PCs.
There is a fine line between playing the monsters to their full capacity and just being a jerk.
Everyone's game is different. Some players feel like the DM should allow them to win, and some don't. Neither way is wrong. The important thing is that the players and the DM are on the same page.
|
Sunder is pretty much a feat made solely for the DM. PC's will never use the feat past the early levels because they don't want to smash their phat lootzzzz.Ken, the rules say you get 'x loot' by 'y level' you should have that much GP value by the time you reach that level. So if you sunder a magic weapon, or peice of armour, the value of that loot should find it's way to you by other means. If a PC wants to do something other than hit it with a sword, for godsake don't punish them for it.
Actually, the rules say that if you make a character whole cloth at a certain level, they should have x amount of gold to buy gear. The rules also say that CR is based on the assumption that characters have around that much gear.
Last I checked, the rules state nowhere that characters must get "x loot by y level".
I dislike Sunder so much, I've removed it from my games. Weapons and armor were meant be bashed, bashing them in a special way (in combat) to destroy them doesn't make any sense to me.
If it was effective as PF claims, in history we'd have records of soldiers attacking other soldiers weapons and armor (as opposed to them breaking on a killing blow). Gladiators and duelists would attack each others weapon since combat would last longer than a few rounds. Do any of these things appear? No.
In movies (think Highlander), are they trying to break each others weapons the entire time? Because in any fight that lasts longer than a few rounds, that's THE thing to do. But this is all a matter of opinion.
Since you're using Sunder rules, I think you were severe in destroying his weapon, but perhaps it would have been more fair for you to damage or have it broken. Maybe the dragon wouldn't want to ruin his (potential) loot either?
IIRC the dragon was in danger of losing. I am sure a new sword was not the first thing on his mind. If he survives he could get it fixed later.
Priorities:1. Survive
2. Fix the sword.
|
I dislike Sunder so much, I've removed it from my games. Weapons and armor were meant be bashed, bashing them in a special way (in combat) to destroy them doesn't make any sense to me.
If it was effective as PF claims, in history we'd have records of soldiers attacking other soldiers weapons and armor (as opposed to them breaking on a killing blow). Gladiators and duelists would attack each others weapon since combat would last longer than a few rounds. Do any of these things appear? No.
In movies (think Highlander), are they trying to break each others weapons the entire time? Because in any fight that lasts longer than a few rounds, that's THE thing to do. But this is all a matter of opinion.
Since you're using Sunder rules, I think you were severe in destroying his weapon, but perhaps it would have been more fair for you to damage or have it broken. Maybe the dragon wouldn't want to ruin his (potential) loot either?
It has been a while since I brushed up on my medieval weaponry, but wasn't there a weapon that was outright called a "swordbreaker"? Which presumably was designed to... break swords?
Back to the original topic, while the players may think it a little mean, it is a perfectly valid tactic, particularly for intelligent enemies. The expression on one of my player's faces when a Pugwampi ran up and Shatter-ed his heavy shield, after he had taken Shield Focus and everything? Priceless.
I love telling stories and all that which is one reason I DM, but honestly, moments of "Oh my god, you just did what?!?!" seriously make the job more enjoyable.
Sunder is pretty much a feat made solely for the DM. PC's will never use the feat past the early levels because they don't want to smash their phat lootzzzz.Ken, the rules say you get 'x loot' by 'y level' you should have that much GP value by the time you reach that level. So if you sunder a magic weapon, or peice of armour, the value of that loot should find it's way to you by other means. If a PC wants to do something other than hit it with a sword, for godsake don't punish them for it.Actually, the rules say that if you make a character whole cloth at a certain level, they should have x amount of gold to buy gear. The rules also say that CR is based on the assumption that characters have around that much gear.
Last I checked, the rules state nowhere that characters must get "x loot by y level".
An excellent,fair, and accurate response. Let me try again, this time without over simplifying.
The rules are build around a set of core assumptions, ranging from party size and make up to expected wealth by level. I would argue that a DM who is playing with these core assumptions in mind, would not punish the players for making a sensible and character appropriate decision, such as sundering the weapons or armour of an NPC which is a substantial threat to them because of specific weapons or armour.
I hope that is a more defensible position ;) Thank you for pulling me up on it.
|
Actually, the rules say that if you make a character whole cloth at a certain level, they should have x amount of gold to buy gear. The rules also say that CR is based on the assumption that characters have around that much gear.
Last I checked, the rules state nowhere that characters must get "x loot by y level".
And nowhere does it say all loot must be specially tailored for them, or even usable by them.
The fact they sell some of it for half price is their affair.
|
|
Sunder is pretty much a feat made solely for the DM. PC's will never use the feat past the early levels because they don't want to smash their phat lootzzzz.Ken, the rules say you get 'x loot' by 'y level' you should have that much GP value by the time you reach that level. So if you sunder a magic weapon, or peice of armour, the value of that loot should find it's way to you by other means. If a PC wants to do something other than hit it with a sword, for godsake don't punish them for it.Actually, the rules say that if you make a character whole cloth at a certain level, they should have x amount of gold to buy gear. The rules also say that CR is based on the assumption that characters have around that much gear.
Last I checked, the rules state nowhere that characters must get "x loot by y level".
An excellent,fair, and accurate response. Let me try again, this time without over simplifying.
The rules are build around a set of core assumptions, ranging from party size and make up to expected wealth by level. I would argue that a DM who is playing with these core assumptions in mind, would not punish the players for making a sensible and character appropriate decision, such as sundering the weapons or armour of an NPC which is a substantial threat to them because of specific weapons or armour.
I hope that is a more defensible position ;) Thank you for pulling me up on it.
I agree that the game, RAW, is built around WBL assumptions. But the game is flexible enough to accommodate several play styles. And, if you're running a Gygaxian type campaign (and I'm basing this on published modules), there seems to be a magic sword in every torch sconce and under every bed, so sundering a weapon may not have the same impact as in a strict, by the 3.5/PfRPG numbers campaign.
So it's really just a matter of play style. In some groups it'll be par for the course and the players expect it, and in some groups it'll be the highest level of ass-hattery.
But, as the sunder rule is in the books, and, presumably, NPCs have access to feats like Improved Sunder, then it is in the DM's toolbox if he chooses to use it.
*shrug*
It's fair to do, but as others say, it shouldn't be used ALL THE TIME.
It makes sense for the dragon to have tried it. Dragons are powerful, intelligent opponents (the only reason the dragon might not have destroyed it is it wouldn't want a broken shiny to add to its hoard later ;) ).
I haven't often attempted sunder attempts as a GM (but that's largely circumstantial) but I have had a PC's belongings destroyed by a metal eating acidic creature (to be fair, the PC could probably have backed off and killed it from range, and he chose to remain in range of the monster, and he was well aware of what it was capable of, so I think that was fair).
The only thing is I would think carefully about destroying the party's items if they are not in a position to mend or find new items to replace the destroyed items. It CAN be a great challenge, to have the party deal with a situation of being with low gear, IF DONE WELL. But it should not be a common occurrence.
Usually in the "is this fair" line of questioning--if it's a tactic the PCs can use, you should be able to use it too (in my game, I had an unhappy shadowdancer (though the player was amused) when they fought a band of creatures with the ability to HIPS and Shadow Jump).
I've rarely seen Sunder in action. If you're going to use sunder on magic items remember these footnotes from the section on breaking items:
1 Add +2 for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
3 Add 10 hp for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
So, if the paladin had a +4 sword it would have hardness 18 and 45hp (50 for a greatsword). That's reasonably tough to destroy. Of course folks tend to buy +1 holy and stuff like that more often than regular plusses. Maybe more sundering would make plusses more popular. Certainly it should make adamantine more popular.
It might be interesting to consider how much sundering is "too much". If sundering is an effective tactic in the game world then enemies of even average intelligence might decide to use it. It is probably easier to get rid of the weapon than the PC (especially considering that a lot of PCs have high AC). Of course the PCs might carry backup weapons, but it is a good bet that they won't be as powerful. If I was a BBEG and knew the PCs are a serious threat maybe I'd give my mooks orders to concentrate on sundering. Presumably this should result in some BBEG bashing devices being broken before they reach me, and that's nice. I don't want a holy sword anyhow. Anyhow while PCs are generally well prepared to heal HP damage they might not be stocked up on Mending and Make Whole.
I wonder how long the enemies could use tactics like those before everybody besides the druids and monks cried foul though. Heck, even the monks might cry foul considering that you can sunder stuff other than weapons. The BBEG might issue orders to chop amulets, headbands, and belts too. If spell component pouches are valid targets why not sunder those? Sunder his boots and torment him with caltrops. Can you sunder pants? Obviously there's a point where you can go too far, possibly even before you start sundering pants.
|
|
(I suppose I can make it up to him with the dragon's treasure hoard that it was forced to abandon.)
This.
"You stole my ship!" (You broke my sword!)
"I'll get you another ship!"
"Which one?"
"That one!"
"THAT ONE?!"
Remember that by breaking his weapon you have decreased his inherent wealth and now need to bring him back up to equivalent wealth by level in order to keep the gameplay at a balanced level. If he specifically got that sword forged and spent time getting it to exact specifications, you NEED to give him a direct upgrade or at the very least a side-grade.
The sundering in itself wasn't a jerk move. Sundering almost never is as long as you use it sparingly. It's the sunder-then-never-replace that's a jerk move. A paladin functions on having a good sword. Make sure he gets a replacement weapon that works with his weapon focus feats and whatnot.
If he took an heirloom weapon trait from adventurer's armory, and now can't repair it magically, give him a quest to get it put back together. Go find the hermit elven mage-smithy in the far corner of blahdeblahland and bring him a magical fruitbat to use as an apprentice's familiar or something.
Remember, when trying to gain the assistance of high level mages their time is worth far more than their gold, so if you make your players do some extra easy roleplaying of a couple weeks game time in out of combat stuff you can certainly justify a higher level mage assisting.
|
So, back to the Make whole argument here, I haven't found any place that says that the WEAPON's CL is the CL to make it...
"Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite:
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon
must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee
or ranged special weapon abilities."So, I guess it's double the greatest abilities CL for that weapon, no? If not it should be something of the like.
d20pfsrd.com[/url]]Caster Level for Weapons: The caster level of a weapon with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
In real life, people are squishier than their equipment so it generally didn't make as much sense to attack their weapons. Not so in D&D.
People are squishier in real life but fights typically last longer in real life than in D&D. If it takes more than a few rounds to kill someone, it's a better idea to go after their weapon. Because fights in D&D are shorter than in real life, this means in real life it should have been more common. If realism is what we want to achieve in PF.
Then again, we do have historical accounts of weapons and shields breaking and this would have happened with some frequency because things would have gotten beat up with normal use. Not so in D&D.
Poor quality gear breaks (this was in the rules in some edition), damaged gear breaks, but it's not because the opponent was specifically targeting the person's weapon or shield.
So I'm thinking too much comparison with the real world goes only so far on this topic.
Since PF is trying to be more realistic than a game such as 4E, it's worth mentioning.
It has been a while since I brushed up on my medieval weaponry, but wasn't there a weapon that was outright called a "swordbreaker"? Which presumably was designed to... break swords?
That's a specific (and super rare) weapon that's specifically designed to break only a single weapon (sword), which is obviously completely different than any generic weapon breaking anyone elses's weapon/armor/other gear. And in real life, I highly question it's effectiveness.
Gamewise, as a DM I can completely wreck the PCs with sunder. Especially archers. And all intelligent enemies are desperate, that's exactly what they would do. So my PCs have to carry around 5 spare bows if I play intelligent enemies to their potential. Lame.
Anyway, this is a fantasy game and there are no right or wrong answers. If you like sunder, go for it. But as you can see, the DM just used it in one very extreme instance and it's created problems.
It'd be really sweet if fighters and rangers and martial classes were heroes in their own right, and their weapons were but silly toys they had to be exchanged whenever they want.
But that's not how the rules work.
Fighters and martial classes are 100% reliant on their magic items. A level 20 fighter with no magic weapon may as well be a level 1 monk. Fighters and rangers live and die by their magic weapons (and paladins to a lesser degree, but they can use Divine Bond to help that).
As for sundering? Sundering isn't bad as long as 1) you plan on making up the gold lost in some way, and 2) you don't do it consistently. Now I'm not saying gold comes pouring out of the sword when it's broken, but remember - martial classes need their wealth drastically more then magical classes, and magical classes quite frankly don't need more reasons to lord themselves above others.
That's the thing people are forgetting. Sundering is almost 100% an anti-melee class tactic. And do we really need to kick them down further?
For those complaining about the level limit on make whole, you do realize it doesn't have to be a PC that casts it, right? I know it's shocking to realize there are other people in the game world than the PCs, but there are. And a high level caster might, instead of cash, give the PCs a task to fulfill instead - oh look you've autogenerated your next adventure hook. Glass half full people.
My 2cp:
Sundering shouldn't be used to punish player's for doing well in combat. It SHOULD be used for monsters like fiends, chromatic dragons, liches, etc., to establish that they are EVIL, MEAN, and BASTARDS. It shouldn't be overused, but it can really make PCs HATE a BBEG. And again, provide avenues for the PC to repair his weapon later if he really is heartbroken about the loss.
For those complaining about the level limit on make whole, you do realize it doesn't have to be a PC that casts it, right? I know it's shocking to realize there are other people in the game world than the PCs, but there are. And a high level caster might, instead of cash, give the PCs a task to fulfill instead - oh look you've autogenerated your next adventure hook. Glass half full people.
+1
I can especially see a powerful metallic dragon offering his services in this way.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, Sundering does show up in fantasy and fiction. Off the top of my head...
and they're different weapons) is broken by Arthur when he fights Lancelot. The Lady in the Lake reforges it (or gives him Excaliber, again, depending on the tale)
What is mean? What is unneeded, and what is untrue.
MEAN : Casting aspersions by saying you don't believe he even bothered following the rules. You don't know better, he said he did, calling him a liar is mean, insulting and inflamatory.
UNNEEDED : I'm surprised at this question, I went into detail in my post. Ah, you didn't even read it did you? You should actually read posts rather than posting without reading. (NOTE: Sarcasm in case you didn't notice it, demonstrating in detail how the above was 'MEAN'). Details about the rules were unneeded for the question. The question was 'Is using Sunder against players mean'. It doesn't matter if it's a dragon or a fighter doing the sunder, the question was whether using sunder on players is mean.
UNTRUE : First, that a Dragon can't do Sunder. You stated a dragon couldn't. Second, that the rules were necessary for the question to be answered. The question is a philosophical one, not a rules interpretation question.