In a recent encounter I was hosting for my friends, 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?
(I suppose I can make it up to him with the dragon's treasure hoard that it was forced to abandon.)
Had I been in your shoes, I would have done the same.
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?
Well, with the exception of a shatter spell, it's melee characters that do the sundering.
Fact is, a weapon can be broken. It happens. IRL it happened just from general wear and tear. The important thing is not to use it as a means to penalise the melee character.
1) It can be a source of a quest to get a weapon reforged, find a new one etc.
2) It can be a balance to keep the party WBL in the range the DM feels most comfortable with.
3) It can be the means to introduce something better.
There are a lot of options. You don't have to use them, but doing so can ease the sting a little.
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?
In my experience, I'm much more likely to sunder a flimsy wand or staff in the hands of a weak wizard than a relatively strong magic sword in the hands of a strong fighter. YMMV, of course.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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?In my experience, I'm much more likely to sunder a flimsy wand or staff in the hands of a weak wizard than a relatively strong magic sword in the hands of a strong fighter. YMMV, of course.
+1 In fact, I did this with Shad in our first adventure (1st level) charged the wizard with the wand of magic missile, sundered it. He didn't even get an AoO because he wasn't 'armed'.
I think this is my first Pathfinder related post since the RPG SuperStar 2010 contest ended. :/
I have skimmed the thread, so my regrets if I am repeating someone else's thoughtful comments. This is just my opinion, and I expect someone will have said it already.
Sunder is fine when used with moderation; especially in a tough and/or challenging fight.
Damaging equipment is another consequence to combat in the game, and it affects the game's economy in terms of wealth and resources.
For example: why take crafting skills, except to make brand new things that last forever? When taking crafting feats, why have a system to repair items at all?
Why have feats like Defensive Combat Training, if you're not ever going to use Combat Maneuvers against your players? Why should the Combat Maneuvers Feats (like Improved Sunder) provide a defense against the Combat Maneuvers of the same name?
Sundering, Tripping, and the like are all part of the routine stuff that should be happening in combat periodically. It’s part of the game ecology and economy. When these maneuvers do happen every once in a while (especially at lower levels), players adapt. They remember to take the mending cantrip. The rogue takes the 'Stand up' Talent. They consider taking Combat Maneuvers of their own and use them against their enemies as well. And they spend some of that gold on repairs instead of stockpiling new gear. This is all healthy to the game.
Maneuvers work just as well at low levels, and they condition players to not only defend against them but to use them as well.
If your players get a little frustrated, especially when you're not doing things like sunder very often, it's often that its a new experience against which they have no defense or they never expected. It came out of the blue, so to speak.
Finally, mending and make whole both repair magic items that are of a level proportionate to what they party should have as its equipment anyway. This can be done in the field, and if they're prepared it shouldn't stop the adventure cold. There's nothing really disastrous about a good ol' sunder once in a while.
However, one suggestion- don't just pull out sunder and trip once in a great while.. use them periodically (with moderation). The players will adapt and it won't come as such a shock next time, and they'll be prepared for to deal with it.
|
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?
There is a fairly cheap magical sword designed to sunder magical weapons in Pathfinder too - it's called Shatterspike (p475) and at only 4315 GP can break +4 weapons - in fact make it out of Adamantine for an extra 3000GP and it completely bypasses hardness of up to +4 steel weapons - that is almost every steel weapon in the game.
Adamantine weapons are crying out to be used to sunder as they bypass any hardness of less than 20.
It's possibly worth getting one of these as a high level fighter, and advertising it, so you know folks wont attack you for fear of losing their shiny stuff ;-)
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.
Those with nothing to hide often dont*. I simply stated an opinion. I did not say he did not do it, which would be stating it as an fact. I said I did not believe he did. The two are close, but there is a difference between saying I dont think you did something, and I know you did not do it.
You responded with a post, but you never said which part was mean, which part was unneeded, and which part was untrue. Maybe you were trying to bunch them together, but if they are listed separately they should be explained separately. Now that I have the entire unneeded explanation I am just more confused at what you are trying to say.
I never said dragons could not sunder. I even supported the idea that he did it.
*This is not aimed at RD. It is just a common belief. An example is the player who sits away from the DM, has the hard to read dice, and always seems to roll well.
|
Sunder is a horribly mean trick to play on characters. In other words...do it. Not often, but don't shy away from it either. As for natural attacks vs magic weapons, house-rule something like for every 5 HD, a monster's attacks are the equivalent of another +1 enhancement bonus for the purposes of sundering. It makes no sense for a Red Great Wyrm to be incapable of sundering a puny Longsword +1..
Those with nothing to hide often dont*. I simply stated an opinion. I did not say he did not do it, which would be stating it as an fact. I said I did not believe he did. The two are close, but there is a difference between saying I dont think you did something, and I know you did not do it.You responded with a post, but you never said which part was mean, which part was unneeded, and which part was untrue. Maybe you were trying to bunch them together, but if they are listed separately they should be explained separately. Now that I have the entire unneeded explanation I am just more confused at what you are trying to say.
I never said dragons could not sunder. I even supported the idea that he did it.
*This is not aimed at RD. It is just a common belief. An example is the player who sits away from the DM, has the hard to read dice, and always seems to roll well.
*sigh*
It's not worth an argument thread over. I found your original post to be a rude casting of aspersions, and I also found the nitpickyness of insisting on knowing all the details to be counter productive to answering the philosophical question posed.
Your confusion over the situation really is the best reason I could give over why the specific rules and details were unnecessary. They detract from the philosophy of 'Is Sunder Mean?' and drag it down to a rules discussion, which is completely irrelevant to the question posed.
EDIT: Edited to be less of a jerk myself in response.
Those with nothing to hide often dont*. I simply stated an opinion. I did not say he did not do it, which would be stating it as an fact. I said I did not believe he did. The two are close, but there is a difference between saying I dont think you did something, and I know you did not do it.You responded with a post, but you never said which part was mean, which part was unneeded, and which part was untrue. Maybe you were trying to bunch them together, but if they are listed separately they should be explained separately. Now that I have the entire unneeded explanation I am just more confused at what you are trying to say.
I never said dragons could not sunder. I even supported the idea that he did it.
*This is not aimed at RD. It is just a common belief. An example is the player who sits away from the DM, has the hard to read dice, and always seems to roll well.
*sigh*
It's not worth an argument thread over. I found your original post to be a rude casting of aspersions, and I also found the nitpickyness of insisting on knowing all the details to be counter productive to answering the philosophical question posed.
Your confusion over the situation really is the best reason I could give over why the specific rules and details were unnecessary. They detract from the philosophy of 'Is Sunder Mean?' and drag it down to a rules discussion, which is completely irrelevant to the question posed.
EDIT: Edited to be less of a jerk myself in response.
I am not arguing, and I never asked for details on how he did it. I was done with the issue after my first statement. If I cared about it that much I would have asked him in no uncertain terms to provide details. I did not know you were trying to describe the philosophy to me, because I did not know you thought I was opposing RD. I assumed you read my post when I said it was a good idea.
I myself did not know a dragon could not sunder without magic fang so I would have made the same mistake, assuming that is what he did. Of course any DM would have had the spell ready if needed so whether or not he used it is a moot point.You took my statement as "RD you are a bad DM for breaking rules, and you must post what happened."
I was saying "RD you probably did not follow the rules."
You took my statement as "RD you are a bad DM for breaking rules, and you must post what happened."
I was saying "RD you probably did not follow the rules."
Ah, ok, my apologies then.
Yes, I took it as A, when you meant B. One of the hazards of text posting. :)
You took my statement as "RD you are a bad DM for breaking rules, and you must post what happened."
I was saying "RD you probably did not follow the rules."Ah, ok, my apologies then.
Yes, I took it as A, when you meant B. One of the hazards of text posting. :)
Actually, saying B could be regarded as a passive-aggressive way of saying A, because RD could then feel required to do A just to exonerate himself from the implication. I am not saying that is what wraithstrike intended, but it is how it could easily be interpreted.
However, it's not the point. The question is, is sundering mean? And that's a very different issue.
You took my statement as "RD you are a bad DM for breaking rules, and you must post what happened."
I was saying "RD you probably did not follow the rules."Ah, ok, my apologies then.
Yes, I took it as A, when you meant B. One of the hazards of text posting. :)
Actually, saying B could be regarded as a passive-aggressive way of saying A, because RD could then feel required to do A just to exonerate himself from the implication. I am not saying that is what wraithstrike intended, but it is how it could easily be interpreted.
However, it's not the point. The question is, is sundering mean? And that's a very different issue.
You have a point, but if I would have said "no need to post the battle" it could have been taken as sarcasm. Not always knowing what someone really means is one of the downfalls of text messages. I think most of us agree that sundering is valid as long as it is limited.
The paladin player was, needless to say, seriously upset to have lost such a powerful tool.
Did he cry? Or even tear up a bit?
Did you collect his tears in a goblet?Oh, sublime.
The paladin player was, needless to say, seriously upset to have lost such a powerful tool.
Did he cry? Or even tear up a bit?
Did you collect his tears in a goblet?
Oh, sublime.
I was in a game where a player nearly had a nervous breakdown when his character died ...
Yes, sunder is mean. Which means as a GM you use it but only in moderation. Having a dragon sunder a weapon that's tearing him up is perfectly reasonable. If you do it more than a couple times players will get frustrated though.
I think it would be perfectly fine for a BBEG to use sunder. I think most players would, rightly, complain if every 1hd goblin did it.
|
|
Yes, sunder is mean. Which means as a GM you use it but only in moderation. Having a dragon sunder a weapon that's tearing him up is perfectly reasonable. If you do it more than a couple times players will get frustrated though.I think it would be perfectly fine for a BBEG to use sunder. I think most players would, rightly, complain if every 1hd goblin did it.
I agree. All I'm suggesting is if every BBEG does it your players might lynch you. If sunder is a GMs goto trick players aren't going to have fun.
In a recent encounter I was hosting for my friends, 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?
(I suppose I can make it up to him with the dragon's treasure hoard that it was forced to abandon.)
As a player I would be very mad if my DM willfully chose to not make an intelligent being, and a dragon at that, not use any of it's obvious advantages. I'm not saying being malicious as DM is in any way tolerable, but that is not the impression I'm getting. Besides, going on a quest to reforge the sword and upgrade it in the process, or finding a magical forge with which a anyone regardless of training may reforge weapons, or my personal favorite; surprising the player by having the party find the weapon's "sister" sword (perhaps horded by the dragon so it could not be used against him) with the same/similar abilites, or just have his freaking deity send down an archon with a shiny new weapon to replace it on the spot. I would much rather have my sword broken by a dragon in an epic fight and have to RP or quest to get a new one than always be able to rely on it, and nothing being shaken up. All in all I feel it's totally fair to sunder pcs weapons, as long as a method of obtaing a new one/reforging is withing reason.
|
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?
I don't know about that. I've sundered plenty of holy symbols in my time. More than a few spell component pouches too.
I fondly remember a 2nd edition wizard I played who lost his spell component pouch to a magical trap and ended up casting nothing but fireballs for the rest of the adventure. We were exploring a cavern complex that contained both a sulfur spring and a cave filled with bats. Months later, while defending a city under siege, our party fighter turned to me and asked, in all seriousness, "how much bat poop are you packing?".
To this day, "bat poop" is slang for "fireball" in my group.
|
Oh funny, I just made a character three weeks ago for an Oriental Adventures campaign, an 8th lvl fighter with an adamantine earthbreaker with the improved sunder feat. My thinking is, forget the loot, break the enemies' stuff (along with armor, doors, walls), we can always fix them later. I was mostly inspired by the back story about destroying the heirloom weapons of opposing samurais that the character would be reknown through the lands. Hmmm... this character could also be a nasty NPC bodyguard.
My view is, no, sundering, especially by the dragon is not a mean trick, but I have to agree with others that you don't want to do it all the time, but enough that people are aware of all the different options. Especially if you're really tearing up an intelligent BBEG, sunder is always an option that the players should not be surprised about.
sundering is fair as long as you give a replacement for the item in some way. a means to repair, an equal or better similar item, or the equivalent in cash. cash doesn't always have to be measured in gold. copper works too. but copper gets pretty heavy. the amount of copper required to buy a +4 longsword can even greatly encumber the terrasque. and doing so can be seen as a jerk move.
sundering is fair as long as you give a replacement for the item in some way. a means to repair, an equal or better similar item, or the equivalent in cash. cash doesn't always have to be measured in gold. copper works too. but copper gets pretty heavy. the amount of copper required to buy a +4 longsword can even greatly encumber the terrasque. and doing so can be seen as a jerk move.
LOL,
I had a quartet of third level characters fight their way through a haunted ruin to a pirates lair, fight the undead baddie (he was immortal undead, so all they did was tick him off when they killed him, finally they just tossed all his bits as far from each other as possible and ran while he tried to put himself back together).They found the pirate horde. Unfortunately for them, they were not the first set of plunderers. They weren't even the 5th set.
So, there was a pile of coins 2 feet high and ten feet across. 200,000 coppers, 12,500 silvers, 300 gold and 20 platinum, all mixed up together in the pile.
One had a handy haversack, so they spent 2 days sorting through getting out just silver/gold/platinum coins and stuffing them in the haversack. Then they filled up an old cask. Then a small chest they dumped iron ingots out of. Eventually all four were heavily encumbered, and they still didn't get all the silver coins. ;)
...just to comment on whether a dragon can sunder a magical weapon or not...
I mentioned this in another threat. I am house-ruling that every time a dragon's DR goes up they can sunder higher-level weapons and armor.
Example: Red Dragon
Young adult gets DR 5/magic = let the dragon sunder +1 enhancement weapons
Mature adult gets DR 10/magic = can now sunder +2 enhancement items
Very old dragon gets DR 15/magic = can now sunder +3 enhancement items
Wyrm has DR 20/magic = can sunder +4 enhancement items.
Just an idea. Similar to the earlier comment about every 4 or 5 HD allowing a monster to sunder magic items (although the idea about every 5HD is more powerful than this idea for dragons - of course what do you if the enemy isn't a dragon and doesn't have a graduated increase in DR)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
Zombieneighbors, if that were the case, then my PC could give all his possessions to the poor of a city, expecting that replacement wealth would be waiting for him around the corner.
You may run your games like that, and if it's fun for your players, then more power to you, but I understand wealth-by-level to be a general guideline to DMs as to how much power the PCs might be carting around, all other things being equal. And giving all your possessions away is certainly not "all other thing being equal". Neither is having your equipment destroyed.
I think the Pathfinder Society Organized Play environment gets it right: you get the opportunity to get a certain amount of wealth each adventure, which keeps you at or a little bit above wealth-by-level. If you miss some hidden gold, nobody runs after you in the streets and makes sure you take it. If you need to heal someone from the dead, or if you buy consumables (potions, wands, swords that get broken and ruined), nobody comes and replenished your PC's hoard.
In my campaign, a lost sword is a reasonable cost for attempting to take down an enormous monster like a dragon, in its own home. To the extent that the player is whining, some NPC might want to come up and express gratitude, while putting things in perspective. "You finally slew the dragon that had been ravaging our countryside for the last twenty years. It took my husband four years ago, and our children's blood burned bright with revenge afterwards, despite my pleas. The both of them died just last month, their attacks only serving to provoke its attention. There is no hope for me, but, thanks to your selfless efforts, no other parents need waken to such loss."
"... Yeah, you're welcome. But it broke my sword."
|
|
Everyone runs wealth by level a little differently. Most people run it as Chris talks about getting the opportunity to have the appropriate wealth by level and my feeling is this is how most GMs run things.
I try and check my players wealth and if average wealth for the whole party is low I'll adjust the next few treasure hoards up a bit. This keeps the average on track but if someone burns through a lot of items (disposable items or broken stuff) then that player will likely fall behind as I don't control treasure distribution in the party. If one guy always spends his gold on potions and uses them then he is going to fall behind the curve. Likewise if you sunder weapons a lot then your characters whose weapons get sundered are going to fall behind.
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!"
Actually, raise dead only costs 5,000 gold (and breath of life is free), while any weapon of at least +3 enchantment costs 9,000+ gold to repair. On the extreme end, a +10 weapon costs 100,000 gold to repair, while a true resurrection only costs 25,000 gold (and breath of life is still free).
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!"Actually, raise dead only costs 5,000 gold (and breath of life is free), while any weapon of at least +3 enchantment costs 9,000+ gold to repair.
Minor nitpick: In theory, you could find an 18th level caster to cast Make Whole on your +3 sword, depending on the campaign.
Minor nitpick: In theory, you could find an 18th level caster to cast Make Whole on your +3 sword, depending on the campaign.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!"Actually, raise dead only costs 5,000 gold (and breath of life is free), while any weapon of at least +3 enchantment costs 9,000+ gold to repair.
But the chances that they would do so at a discount or even at cost are very slim.
|
|
I may be a cold-hearted DM but I see nothing mean about a creature or NPC making logical use of a sound tactic such as sundering. The logic has to include (but not be limited to) considerations such as:
* whether the NPC/creature has the feat or if they're opening themselves up to an attack (perhaps with the very weapon they are trying to avoid)
* they're not doing it just to be a pain in the player's bottom-most orifice
* NPC's want teh phat lewt, too... they're not gonna destroy that +3 butt-kicker if they think there might be any chance they can get it
I won't consider the ready availability of a replacement or repairs... nor if some player is so minmaxed and munchkinized that 25% of his net worth is tied up in a single item that can be lost, taken, stolen, or broken.
Pewp happens.
Minor nitpick: In theory, you could find an 18th level caster to cast Make Whole on your +3 sword, depending on the campaign.
The chances of finding an archmage or high priest willing to do the menial chore of repairing your weapon for you is slim at best in the vast majority of campaigns. Especially for the piddling sum of 360 gold (which is what the price guide makes it out to). In most campaign worlds (Golarion included), there may not even be any 18th level spellcasters aside from the PCs, or at least not ones that have concerns any less than the rulership of nations (I believe all the spellcasters that powerful in Golarion are people like Baba Yaga or the Whispering Tyrant).
If you're worried about a broken +3 sword, you don't have the resources to go planet hopping let alone plane hopping.
I may be a cold-hearted DM but I see nothing mean about a creature or NPC making logical use of a sound tactic such as sundering. The logic has to include (but not be limited to) considerations such as:
* whether the NPC/creature has the feat or if they're opening themselves up to an attack (perhaps with the very weapon they are trying to avoid)
* they're not doing it just to be a pain in the player's bottom-most orifice
* NPC's want teh phat lewt, too... they're not gonna destroy that +3 b&~@-kicker if they think there might be any chance they can get it
I won't consider the ready availability of a replacement or repairs... nor if some player is so minmaxed and munchkinized that 25% of his net worth is tied up in a single item that can be lost, taken, stolen, or broken.
Pewp happens.
It's not just that. Sundering is weird. I don't mean mechanically (though it is). I mean the actual thought process behind it. Why on earth would a monster or, hell, even almost any normal fighter, try to sunder an item rather then just murderize the guy using it?
"That man is trying to hit me with his sword. Rather then killing the man, I think I will attempt to kill his sword! Surely then he will feel so ashamed that the battle will immidiately end!"
|
It's not just that. Sundering is weird. I don't mean mechanically (though it is). I mean the actual thought process behind it. Why on earth would a monster or, hell, even almost any normal fighter, try to sunder an item rather then just murderize the guy using it?
"That man is trying to hit me with his sword. Rather then killing the man, I think I will attempt to kill his sword! Surely then he will feel so ashamed that the battle will immidiately end!"
The thought process is more like:
That man is hitting me with his sword. OH GOD IT'S GLOWING AND IT BUURRRRNSS OH GOD OWWWW.
STOP POKING ME <Bends sword in half>.
There, little man is now trying to punch me to death with his hands? Thanks, I needed a massage. Would you mind standing in front of my huge toothy maw so I can roast you before my midnight snack?
Intelligent critters using sunder makes sense.
The "broken" quality really allows for use of sunder without making the game fall apart. A broken sword is still a usable sword, it's just kind of bad at its job compared to a sword that still has an edge. Same with armor and other items. Sundering an item to the broken state often is fine, so long as the party has a mending spell around. You don't need to have exceedingly high caster levels to bring something back from the broken state. This is where you should stop if using the skill in moderation.
Destroying an item is different. Bringing an item to zero and permanently destroying it is something best used to bring up an entirely new story arc, where people go off to fix (and in fact upgrade) their broken item. This should be done by major villains and NPCs you intend to use throughout your game who your players should want VENGEANCE on. You will make your Players HATE these enemies. You will make the fighter characters HATE these enemies in character. "YOU BROKE MY SWORD". This can be good for a game so long as you can effectively direct the hatred at the NPC, rather than at you as the GM.
It's not just that. Sundering is weird. I don't mean mechanically (though it is). I mean the actual thought process behind it. Why on earth would a monster or, hell, even almost any normal fighter, try to sunder an item rather then just murderize the guy using it?
"That man is trying to hit me with his sword. Rather then killing the man, I think I will attempt to kill his sword! Surely then he will feel so ashamed that the battle will immidiately end!"
The thought process is more like:
That man is hitting me with his sword. OH GOD IT'S GLOWING AND IT BUURRRRNSS OH GOD OWWWW.
STOP POKING ME <Bends sword in half>.
There, little man is now trying to punch me to death with his hands? Thanks, I needed a massage. Would you mind standing in front of my huge toothy maw so I can roast you before my midnight snack?
Intelligent critters using sunder makes sense.
Uh, sundering takes a lot more then just reaching out and bending it. You have to actively desire to sunder a magic weapon, not just do it offhand.
Uh, sundering takes a lot more then just reaching out and bending it. You have to actively desire to sunder a magic weapon, not just do it offhand.
I think a huge ancient dragon with it's vast intelligence, wisdom and awesome physical power can do it just about as off-handedly as they would like.
I'm with this guy. If a dragon wants to break your puny little weapon... there really isn't much you can do about it.
I think a huge ancient dragon with it's vast intelligence, wisdom and awesome physical power can do it just about as off-handedly as they would like.
I also have to agree. Something that big, with a natural attack that powerful and with that much sheer brute force behind it, can do one hell of a lot of damage to a sword. It's ... kind of like biting down on a plastic sewing needle. Yes, you'll chip a tooth or maybe hurt your mouth in the process, but can you do damage to the needle? Hell yes.
Now, if the Sword were Adamantite, that would be a very, very different story and the Dragon would probably have been spitting fragments of teeth out after wards while the player tried to pull his sword out of it's new home, wedged into the bones of the Dragon's jaw.
|
|
It's not just that. Sundering is weird. I don't mean mechanically (though it is). I mean the actual thought process behind it. Why on earth would a monster or, hell, even almost any normal fighter, try to sunder an item rather then just murderize the guy using it?
"That man is trying to hit me with his sword. Rather then killing the man, I think I will attempt to kill his sword! Surely then he will feel so ashamed that the battle will immidiately end!"
I *completely* agree with you. For the most part, this is the thinking the players in my group have for themselves, too. Like I said, it needs to be a logical decision for the NPC or creature to make. Those situations shouldn't come up all that often but they certainly can come up.
Perhaps the weapon might be something the NPC is vulnerable to and, by sundering it, the NPC stands a much better chance of murderizing the guy using it. Or the NPC may be trying his best to capture rather than kill the PC and other venues (grappling, non-lethal damage, etc.) just haven't worked.
It's not just that. Sundering is weird. I don't mean mechanically (though it is). I mean the actual thought process behind it. Why on earth would a monster or, hell, even almost any normal fighter, try to sunder an item rather then just murderize the guy using it?
"That man is trying to hit me with his sword. Rather then killing the man, I think I will attempt to kill his sword! Surely then he will feel so ashamed that the battle will immidiately end!"
I *completely* agree with you. For the most part, this is the thinking the players in my group have for themselves, too. Like I said, it needs to be a logical decision for the NPC or creature to make. Those situations shouldn't come up all that often but they certainly can come up.
Perhaps the weapon might be something the NPC is vulnerable to and, by sundering it, the NPC stands a much better chance of murderizing the guy using it. Or the NPC may be trying his best to capture rather than kill the PC and other venues (grappling, non-lethal damage, etc.) just haven't worked.
Knock aside, remove or destroy the weapon, and dealing with the man becomes an exercise in shelling shrimp. Dragons aren't dumb, they know that a humanoid's threat lies in their weapons, not generally in the humanoid themselves (unless they are a monk) and that capable humanoids are actually pretty tricky to kill, and that weapons are the danger to the dragon. To reach a significant age a dragon can be presumed to have dealt with many adventurers before.
Lore & Story >> Rules. :)
You do realize you just posted that on the Paizo Forums where rules are king, right? o.O
In all seriousness, I agree with you... but more times than not, I see folks taking the "well it's in the RAW, so that's how it has to be" stance around here.
As for Sunder, I think it can shake things up a bit... make the PCs more guarded about their items, and that can be a good thing. I do agree that it's a build that you probably won't see too many PCs taking, because if they sunder a baddie's item they can't then sell it themselves.
|
|
As for Sunder, I think it can shake things up a bit... make the PCs more guarded about their items, and that can be a good thing. I do agree that it's a build that you probably won't see too many PCs taking, because if they sunder a baddie's item they can't then sell it themselves.
That and the fact that players never really see the true power in debuffing a monster. Everybody want to do damage, kill the monster etc. They will always look for a direct route to making the thing stop moving instead of possibly sidestepping and weakening the thing up so you can smash its brain in.
One of the issue with npc baddies that have sensitive information too, PC's rarely let them live long enough to talk.
As for Sunder, I think it can shake things up a bit... make the PCs more guarded about their items, and that can be a good thing. I do agree that it's a build that you probably won't see too many PCs taking, because if they sunder a baddie's item they can't then sell it themselves.That and the fact that players never really see the true power in debuffing a monster. Everybody want to do damage, kill the monster etc. They will always look for a direct route to making the thing stop moving instead of possibly sidestepping and weakening the thing up so you can smash its brain in.
One of the issue with npc baddies that have sensitive information too, PC's rarely let them live long enough to talk.
That's because all PCs acquire the traits "Hatred: NPCs" and "Bloodthirsty".
|
|
I'm all for using Sunder (and Trip and Disarm and Bullrush, etc.) as a DM: the more you do this stuff, the more the PCs will see this stuff as viable options and the more variety you get in combat.
The thing is to also throw in sub-optimal use of this stuff by NPCs as well - as many have already mentioned, a smart NPC should fight smart, but dumb NPCs can fight dumb as well. That doesn't have to mean ignoring combat options, rather it can mean just using them badly. Try having a goblin with an oversized battleaxe leaping at the party's Fighter, trying to Sunder his shield (even though the goblin's not got the related Feats - he's just crazy) - goblin's dead either way, but this way makes a certain impression (and you never know, he could get lucky!).
Sundering a holy symbol is a classic - the sort of thing seen in a lot of vampire films:
Vampire menaces Cleric
Vampire readies an action to Sunder
Cleric pulls out holy symbol
Cleric begins to yell,'By the power of [nice god] I tu...'
Vampire Sunders holy symbol
Cleric finishes, '... rn undead... oh bum!'
... then again, those vampire can be so theatrical... ;)