|
A lot of people have been saying sunder is easy.
But it isn't.
Sunder isn't against AC anymore. It is a combat maneuver, therefore subject to CMD, not just the AC of the object or an opposed attack role check.
What this means is full BAB high CMD can protect their stuff better than low BAB low CMD.
Add to this that you can attempt a sunder with each attack and CMD seems even more important, particularly if you have an arcane bonded item.
Thoughts?
What do you want to sunder?
Sunder an adamantine Warmace of a war Cleric is not sunder a wooden Holy Symbol of a nature Cleric.
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.
Human fighters can easily have the best defenses against sundering (and grappling). With their favored class option you can start your CMD against sundering and grapples at 40 at level 20.
Also since several types of AC bonuses go to CMD as well it's a good idea to get luck, insight, deflection, sacred, and profane bonuses to your AC.
|
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.
Can you quote where you find that in RAW? I can only find that
"Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points."
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.
I don't think this rule exists in PF. Actually I'm not positive it existed in 3.5 either -- they might have left it behind in 3.0.
Add to this that you can attempt a sunder with each attack and CMD seems even more important, particularly if you have an arcane bonded item.
You still have the problem of figuring out what the arcane bonded item is or if the wizard even has one. That being said...
Definitely the feat that gives you CMD based on level and not BAB is starting more and more to seem like a must-have for non-full-BAB characters in games in which combat maneuvers are even moderately common.
Magic Weapons and Shields
The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness and hit points. If a combatant's shield has a +2 enhancement bonus, a combatant add 2 to its hardness and to its hit points.
I had to go into the 3.0e SRD to grab that rule. I don't think it ever carried over to 3.5e, and thus is not found in the Pathfinder rules either.
Note that this is listed in the "Breaking Items and Attacking Objects" section of the rules, and refers to the "Striking a weapon" action (as Sunder was something they came up with in 3.5e).3.5e and Pathfinder have the "Smashing an object" rules (in the Exploration -> Breaking and Entering section), and it only states the pluses adding to hitpoints and hardness.
Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.
I actually remember reading that change, back when 3.5e came out. I thought "oh, now any weapon can smash any other weapon, but you get a heckuva lot more out of the +'s, so it feels like a nice balanced change".
You still have the problem of figuring out what the arcane bonded item is or if the wizard even has one. That being said...
If the arcane bond is a weapon, which is a possibility, one doesn't have to know that the weapon just happens to be one of the greatest weak points of the opponent for it to be vulnerable. Even without an arcane bond to worry about, though, being grappled, tripped, bull-rushed, or hit by any of the other combat manuevers is dangerous, so any campaign where they are commonly being used, players would be wise to keep that in mind when making their characters.
Add to this that you can attempt a sunder with each attack and CMD seems even more important, particularly if you have an arcane bonded item.
I love the bonded item option. Familiars are not in character for many wizard archetypes, and frequently annoying as a roleplaying element, so it's great to have an alternative. I do find it somewhat annoying that a Wizard who chooses a bonded item can only choose between amulet, ring, wand, staff, or weapon, and that a wand, staff, or weapon must be "wielded" rather than just held.
It does open up a wizard to having their item sundered quite easily. They have little CMD to defend it with, and an opponent without Improved Sunder won't be worried about the Wizard's attack of opportunity in most cases.
Definitely the feat that gives you CMD based on level and not BAB is starting more and more to seem like a must-have for non-full-BAB characters in games in which combat maneuvers are even moderately common.
It really is a great choice especially for the poor BAB characters.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.I don't think this rule exists in PF. Actually I'm not positive it existed in 3.5 either -- they might have left it behind in 3.0.
It's in the PRD, under Magic Items/ Weapons. Scroll down to Damaging Magic Weapons.
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.Can you quote where you find that in RAW? I can only find that
"Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points."
Joana has the PRD entry ... also page 468 of the Core Rulebook, Chapter "Magic Items", "Weapons" Section, "Damaging Magic Weapons" Header
Don't forget that you can't sunder a magical item (mainly weapons, armors and shields) with an item that has a higher bonus than the weapon you are using.I don't think this rule exists in PF. Actually I'm not positive it existed in 3.5 either -- they might have left it behind in 3.0.
Magic weapons section:
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
However I don't see anything like that for armor now that I double check it, and nothing for other magical items either. Still not a guarantee of success though since it is a combat maneuver.
Wow. I missed that in both the PRD and 3.5e SRD... I even used a firefox page search for the word "magic" on those pages to make sure I wasn't missing it. Yikes.
Good to know. If anyone ever uses Sunder, it'll be good to know.
I did have a working build for a two-weapon sundering fighter in 3.5. While you ended up having to use two shatterspikes to get the job done, shatterspike itself negated the -4 penalty for two one-handed weapons.
While you can also do well with a two-handed weapon, I believe such a character would be much better against armor in PF now that, y'know, it can actually be sundered.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Wow. I missed that in both the PRD and 3.5e SRD... I even used a firefox page search for the word "magic" on those pages to make sure I wasn't missing it. Yikes.
That line was was specifically removed in the 3.5 DMG errata, I believe.
Yep. Paizo unerrated what 3.5 did.
Not sure why though. Maybe they didn't know it was removed or they liked the rule.
Personally, I've always liked the rule that you couldn't damage weapons unless your weapon had at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon you were trying to damage. It's yet another reason for characters to get higher +enhancement weapons than weapons with lots of additional powers.
I also utilize the rule for armor and shields as well.
How about creating a "destroyed" item condition with the following properties:
- item is unusable
- item is repairable
One would be able to destroy items without worrying about making it final.
That, I like!
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because "destroyed" is already in the game? Destroyed IS final. It's akin to "death" for magic items.
A second ruined object category that would fit between "broken" and "destroyed" kind of overcomplicates things in my opinion... but if it WERE to be added, it should have a name other than "destroyed." Something like "severely broken" or "nearly ruined" or something like that.
Well... until someone casts Make Whole. The resurrection of blades ;)
Thanks! Having never read Make Whole closely, I didn't realize it was so easy to repair an item that had been destroyed!
Well... until someone casts Make Whole. The resurrection of blades ;)Thanks! Having never read Make Whole closely, I didn't realize it was so easy to repair an item that had been destroyed!
Don't forget the whole twice the caster level bit:
"Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item."
So it's not as easy as it looks.
Weapon has a caster level of 9, you've gotta be 18th level to fix it with Make Whole.
... they liked the rule.This.
We did a fair amount in the game to reduce instances where your hard-won gear gets destroyed.
How does this interact with enhancement bonuses on armor and shields? Can a +2 weapon sunder a +4 armor?
What if I was using a +4 shield to bash with (the defensive enhanement, not the offensive one)?
|
... they liked the rule.This.
We did a fair amount in the game to reduce instances where your hard-won gear gets destroyed.
How does this interact with enhancement bonuses on armor and shields? Can a +2 weapon sunder a +4 armor?
What if I was using a +4 shield to bash with (the defensive enhanement, not the offensive one)?
looking for trouble =S
I believe in chapter 15 the section titled "Shields" describes closely enough to answer your question.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Add to this that you can attempt a sunder with each attack
I keep seeing this sentiment repeating itself across the boards,
but it seems directly excluded from how I read the actual rules of Sunder: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.
Attack Action. Not each/any attack.
Certainly, the actual wording isn`t as good as it could be: The generic sounding `in place of a melee attack` grammatically conflicts with the context of ´as part of an attack action´ (`as part of an attack action in place of THE melee attack` would be clearer/ grammatically correct). ...But the fact that attack action was added where it was`t mentioned at all in 3.5 seems pretty specific and non-ignorable to me.Monks CAN use any Unarmed Strike Flurry attack to Sunder, but even they can`t Sunder via AoO`s.
Attack Action does allow Vital Strike synergy for actually destroying the item once you beat the CMD, at least.
What if I was using a +4 shield to bash with (the defensive enhanement, not the offensive one)?
HIS WEAPON being the relevant context. A Shield`s Shield Enhancement Bonus is no more relevant to it`s function as a Weapon than somebody`s Enhancement Bonus to DEX is to their Unarmed Strikes.
If you have some way to treat a Shield Enhancement as a Weapon Enhancement for all purposes, then sure, it`s treated as whatever Weapon Enhancement that you are allowed via that Ability. Otherwise, you use the real Weapon Enhancements you put on your Shield, because you don`t make CMB or any attack rolls benefitting from Shield Enhancements.
Wasn`t that fun?
Wasn`t that fun?
The reason I asked that particular question was because IF James ruled that you could NOT destroy a magical armor or sield with a higher enhancement bonus, then it stands to reason that I might be able to use said enhancement bonus against itself (such as using a shield's bonus to be able to break a weapon--not to add to the check, just to make sundering something possible AT ALL).
|
|
So, it is straight damage vs the object? Do all types of damage add together.
Example: My 9th Lvl Fighter (Archer variant) has the Sunder Trick Shot.
My normal CMB is 15, -4 for the Trick, as per the APG.
However, damage is 1D8+9+1D6 fire,+1D6 Cold.
Does Deadly Aim add?
Manyshot would do damage in 2 separate Sunder attempts?
Say it is an Aligned 'Evil' item, would a Holy Weapon work?
Using +1 Adamantine arrows, btw...
-Uriel
However, damage is 1D8+9+1D6 fire,+1D6 Cold.
Your damage would be 1d8+9 applied first, then half 1d6 fire, half 1d6 cold (which would likely do nothing, given hardness).
Does Deadly Aim add?
I'm willing to say "sure" on this one. Same as power attack would apply. That is, of course, if you could use a ranged weapon to Sunder.
Quoth the PRD: "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." I recall there was a feat in 3.5 that allowed you to sunder whilst doing ranged attacks, but at half damage.
Manyshot would do damage in 2 separate Sunder attempts?
Correct. Apply hardness twice, too. (And, again, assuming you have something that lets you attempt to sunder.)
Say it is an Aligned 'Evil' item, would a Holy Weapon work?
This would be up to the GM to house rule. For the record, in my game, the answer is 'yes'.
Using +1 Adamantine arrows, btw...
See above, re: ranged sundering.
See above, re: ranged sundering.
Just for completeness sake, IIRC either the archer or crossbowman fighter archetypes from the APG gets to do ranged sunders. I'm fairly certain it was the archer, but could have been the crossbowman.
I also think it should be allowed for some thrown weapons. Javelins, IIRC, where used as much for disabling shields as for actually killing people (note: should. I'm not saying it does, just that I'd like them to. Would give throwing weapons an edge at least SOMEWHERE)
Just for completeness sake, IIRC either the archer or crossbowman fighter archetypes from the APG gets to do ranged sunders. I'm fairly certain it was the archer, but could have been the crossbowman.
Just checked. You are correct, sir, it is the Archer.
But you can do so only at a -4 to your CMB. So if you want to take an ADDITIONAL penalty to use Vital Strike, you may.
And, again, each time you apply damage, you apply hardness...
So to revisit the issue:
Using +1 Adamantine arrows, btw...
Since you earlier said your damage was 1d8+9 plus 1d6 cold plus 1d6 fire, I'm assuming you've also got some kind of bow that grants both fire and cold damage and therefore ALSO has some kind of plus to it.
I'd rule that the "controlling" plus for purposes of whether or not you can damage an object is the arrow's, not the bow's. So your +1 adamantine arrow would only be able to damage +1 or nonmagical weapons (it can apparently damage all other objects just fine). Edit: Actually, I take that back. It'd probably make more consistent sense if the controlling "plus" is the highest of the two, same as for Damage Reduction.
So you'd deal 1d8+9 damage which would bypass 20 points of hardness - probably dealing some damage, but probably not destroying anything outright on your first shot. Then you'd deal 1d6 points of fire damage, halved (because it's an object), minus hardness (adamantine wouldn't apply to this), which would likely come down to 0. Same for the cold.
But I'm pretty sure I'm flying entirely on interpretation at this point. 'Sup to your GM.
|
|
Just for completeness sake, IIRC either the archer or crossbowman fighter archetypes from the APG gets to do ranged sunders. I'm fairly certain it was the archer, but could have been the crossbowman.
Just checked. You are correct, sir, it is the Archer.
But you can do so only at a -4 to your CMB. So if you want to take an ADDITIONAL penalty to use Vital Strike, you may.
And, again, each time you apply damage, you apply hardness...
So to revisit the issue:
Using +1 Adamantine arrows, btw...Since you earlier said your damage was 1d8+9 plus 1d6 cold plus 1d6 fire, I'm assuming you've also got some kind of bow that grants both fire and cold damage and therefore ALSO has some kind of plus to it.
I'd rule that the "controlling" plus for purposes of whether or not you can damage an object is the arrow's, not the bow's. So your +1 adamantine arrow would only be able to damage +1 or nonmagical weapons (it can apparently damage all other objects just fine). Edit: Actually, I take that back. It'd probably make more consistent sense if the controlling "plus" is the highest of the two, same as for Damage Reduction.
So you'd deal 1d8+9 damage which would bypass 20 points of hardness - probably dealing some damage, but probably not destroying anything outright on your first shot. Then you'd deal 1d6 points of fire damage, halved (because it's an object), minus hardness (adamantine wouldn't apply to this), which would likely come down to 0. Same for the cold.
But I'm pretty sure I'm flying entirely on interpretation at this point. 'Sup to your GM.
Yes, regarding the Fighter/Archer sub-class from the APG, as mentioned before.Both the bow,and the arrows are +1 (And yes,I know that they don't stack, but one reason that I bought the +1 arrows was in case of ambiguous Sundering issues).
Actually, if I am Vital Striking (Have it, of course), and Deadly Aiming, damage is 2D8+15/16 within 30'.Or, with Rapid and Manyshot,plus Haste potion...+13(x2)/13/13/8.
It's an Arena-Deathmatch game, and I am finding Sundering/Disarming the bad guys more fun than just killing them. Crowd loves it, etc...
Game is one we do a few times a year for one guy's visiting son,way too much gear... My actual numbers are higher, but I toned them for a 'normal' version. I doff my usual DM hat and play a machine-gunning Elf, ala Gauntlet. It's fun.
+1 Holy,Fire,Frost Mighty (+6) LC Bow, +1 Adamantine arrows.
Along with the Bracers of Archery, Belt of Str/Dex +4, etc, it's enough to give a proper DM a migriane. I wouldn't want to run such a Monty haul sort of game, but it's fun when the kid visits.
-Uriel
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What penalty to use Vital Strike? It's just extra damage to Attack Actions.
Rapidshot, Manyshot and Haste are all irrelevant to Sunder because they are Full Attack only.
Even APG Archer variant Fighters get nothing which allows them to use Sunders within a Full Attack,
they are still subject to the Action requirements of Sunder.
I'm pretty sure any +1d6 elemental damage effects would NOT have to bypass Hardness DR separately, DR is applied per attack and such effects are considered part of the same attack. The elemental damage would still be halved (unless 'especially effective against the item') but once the Hardness is overcome all damage should go thru to HP, IMHO.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
(...)
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
The Hardness reference under the Energy Attack section is not a SEPARATE step, it is a reference to the SAME step in which after ALL damage is determined normally (including 1/2 to energy if applicable), the total damage is reduced by Hardness ONCE. Note that the rules don't actually say what portion of multi-type damage would be reduced by Hardness, which matters for creatures with resistance/vulnerability... That would seem to be a GM call.
Also notice how Paizo changed the wording vs. 3.5:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.and PRD:Combat:Sunder:
vs. 3.5 Sunder: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. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)
Paizo removed the Slashing/Bludgeoning requirements from Sunder itself, but they are seemingly retained in the 'Smashing an Object' rules... Which seems a fairly needless/pointless obfuscation of the rules, taking that information away from the most obvious place a player making a Sunder manuever would look... just to move it to the Smashing an Object section, where the exact same requirement ('slashing or bludgeoning') IS REPEATED WITHIN 2 SENTENCES OF ITSELF (rather than phrasing the Slash/Bludgeon restriction to apply to BOTH Sunders and Unattended Objects with 1 sentence). 3.5 was very straight forward on this... I can't imagine any reason why anybody could have thought this was a good idea to change how this rule is presented.
...But actually, the mention of slashing/bludgeoning re: Sunder (in the Smashing an Object section) ISN'T phrased as a requirement, it just superfluously says that smashing a weapon/shield with a slashing/bludgeoning weapon is done via the Sunder maneuver - Which isn't actually in conflict with using Piercing weapons to Sunder via the Sunder maneuver... Though one is left to ask, why does this bizarre sentence pointlessly mentioning slashing/bludgeoning in the Sunder context even exist, then? So, seemingly another Errata issue in one way or another. (RAI?)
I'm pretty sure any +1d6 elemental damage effects would NOT have to bypass Hardness DR separately, DR is applied per attack and such effects are considered part of the same attack. The elemental damage would still be halved (unless 'especially effective against the item') but once the Hardness is overcome all damage should go thru to HP, IMHO.
I agree on this point.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So can you make a sunder attempt with each attack or just as a standard action?
Can you sunder with AoO?
I personally believe that you can/should be able to do it with each attack. Otherwise, disarm is better IN EVERY WAY.
However, the current wording is really hard to get around. It makes it clear you can replace your normal melee attack, when using an attack action.
The way it's jammed together though makes me think that it might be an error in editing, like they couldn't make up their mind and so now we have verbiage from both camps in the same sentence.
"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."
It's hard to know for sure. If we can get official input on the matter as to what the intent of the rule was, I for one would be most grateful.
Sunder is unique in that its phrasing is unlike any of the other combat maneuvers (which all make it clear that the maneuver is either a standard action, or can be made in place of any old attack). I think that is why there is confusion and why many people are second guessing the wording of Sunder. It's inconsistent.
I assume Sunder can be done in place of single attack and as parto of full attack, because ot the monk flurry description - it seems is somewhat assumed there (i could be wrong).
I consider, at least for my game, the rule simply badly explained.
What penalty to use Vital Strike? It's just extra damage to Attack Actions.
I apologize, I misspoke. I meant Deadly Aim.
And I disagree with you on the not applying Hardness to each damage effect (obviously, since I stated it in my opinion.) The reason I say this is because nowhere does it say that hardness only applies once per attack - it in fact states that:
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage.
(Emphasis, obviously mine). Though again, this is purely interpretation.
I wouldn't mind a drop in from Mr. Jacobs for his own opinion one way or t'other, but I don't necessarily accept his words as binding precedent either, just persuasive authority.
And, also just saw this to counterpoint...
The Hardness reference under the Energy Attack section is not a SEPARATE step, it is a reference to the SAME step in which after ALL damage is determined normally (including 1/2 to energy if applicable), the total damage is reduced by Hardness ONCE. Note that the rules don't actually say what portion of multi-type damage would be reduced by Hardness, which matters for creatures with resistance/vulnerability... That would seem to be a GM call.
In my Corebook (2nd printing I believe, p. 173-174), Hardness and Hit Points are two separate sections under "Smashing an Object", with the Energy Attacks section that you quote as a subsection of "Hit Points".
Under pfsrd.com, Hardness, Hit Points, and Energy Attacks are their own separate sections - not one under t'other. The official Paizo PRD has them all as their own separate subsections under "Smashing an Object".
So your argument that they're all a part of the same section rings a little false, in my reading.
|
|
I assume Sunder can be done in place of single attack and as parto of full attack, because ot the monk flurry description - it seems is somewhat assumed there (i could be wrong).
I consider, at least for my game, the rule simply badly explained.
+1
An official answer would be pretty swell...*ahem*
-Uriel
|
|
What penalty to use Vital Strike? It's just extra damage to Attack Actions.I apologize, I misspoke. I meant Deadly Aim.
-3 To Hit,+6 Damage currently.
So, with Rapid, I am losing 5 from my To Hit.I don't care, though, it is fun to pump out 5 arrows a round,I tend to roll lots of hits (Unfortunately, as a DM as well...I don't like punishing them TOO hard, so sometimes I wince a bit).
-Uriel
So your argument that they're all a part of the same section rings a little false, in my reading.
I agree, they should all be resolved separately.
I agree, they should all be resolved separately.
So your argument that they're all a part of the same section rings a little false, in my reading.
I do too. It would be just like if you had a flaming, frost longsword, and the enemy was vulnerable against fire, but had resistance 5 against cold. You don't just ignore those traits. You apply each one separately since each one is its own dice roll.
PRD:Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
So it seems that each energy type is taken under its own merit.
@Ravingdork: I agree it`s not unlikely that there is editing problems behind this... Which makes it unfortunate that Paizo has never spoken to this, even though I know that at least I personally have brought it up on the boards multiple times. Obviously, Paizo can`t expect any reader to interpret the current RAW as allowing Sunder via any attack, while reading Attack Action to mean Attack Action seems pretty dang reasonable to me. Then again, it seems like there`s alot of looking the other way going on... i.e. people think it would be silly to restrict Sunder to Attack Actions, and instead of dealing with it head on and saying they will house-rule (which makes the topic visibile to Paizo), they just look the other way even though the RAW is clear enough.
@Kaiwanyang: Exception based design. Monks having special rules saying that can make X maneuver in place of a Flurry attack does NOT imply that ANYBODY can make X maneuver in place of ANY attack. If that was the intent, the GENERAL rules for maneuver X should state that it can be done via any attack... Which several maneuvers DO state, whle others don`t... which would seem to be an intentional difference. Read my posts, I already pointed out that Monks can sunder with UAS Flurry attacks (NOT Monk weapons, and NOT non-Flurry attacks, e.g. AoO`s, Cleaves, Whirlwind Attacks, etc).
@ArchmageAtrus: I think you´re missing my point...
These rules are clearly directly related to the order of operations when Smashing an Object/Sundering, and are all located in the Smashing an Object section. Exactly what order they are located in that section, or even if they were dispersed in other chapters (as many PRPG rules are, example: Sunder and Smashing an Object) is irrelevant to my purpose. If you re-read my post, you can see I explicitly say they are ´the same step´ (not section), which means step in order of operations of resolving an attack.
Hardness is only applied once per attack. There is no discrete events for each +1d6 energy, they are all part of the exact same event... If it wasn`t so, many mechanics which trigger per attack would also be effected...
The rules for Hardness say ´When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage.´ No differentiation between physical/ elemental damage, Hardness happens when the object is damaged and physical/elemental damage happen simultaneously when Sundering. The rules for Elemental Damage go on to say ´Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.´ `Before applying the object´s hardness´ is an explicit reference to the step ALREADY described in Hardness - You aren`t being directed to apply Hardness a second time, you are just being given instructions on how to modify elemental damage before it gets to the Hardness stage. Note that the order these topics are introduced doesn`t correspond to the order you apply them: Presumably Elemetal Damage is described afterwards (in the version I`m using) because it isn`t going to apply to every Sunder attempt, i.e. it`s a secondary concern to the main mechanic.
Waithstrike actually brought up the exact point I wanted to make:
The game HAS a mechanic for dealing with `damage reducing thresholds´ that stack / apply on top of other general damage reducing thresholds: ít´s called RESISTANCE. resistance is a separate step in the order of operations than DR. Any elemental damage that gets thru DR is THEN subjected to reduction via resistance, or increase via vulnerability.
...back to the other subject of this thread,
I agree it`s regrettable that there`s no `in between` condition besides `broken` (minor penalty) and ´destroyed`.
I think a reasonable houserule would be to have a ´wrecked´ condition (or whatever) which stacked with the broken condition penalties but also made the object only work as a improvised weapon. that would have further penalties (unless you have Improvised Weapon proficiency), and because you are no longer using the weapon as intended, weapon specific bonuses and abilities wouldn`t work, nor would the weapon enhancements on the weapon. (if you are proficient in Improvised Weapons, I would allow weapon enhancements to still apply, but things like Weapon Focus/Training wouldn`t apply, nor other abilities tied to the ´normal´ weapon type such as DEX to damage for Scimitars)
for shields (or armor), I would just double the broken penalties and stop any magic effects from working. for other objects (say, a magic wand), i would double any relevant penalties from broken, and have the object make a save each time you use it (or be destroyed). actually, i would also say that `wrecked` armor and shields are completely destroyed if you are hit by a critical (ANY hit, not just sunders). Likewise, `wrecked` weapons would be destroyed if you crit WITH them. (after dealing their crit damage)
ideally, ´wrecked´ would not just apply ONLY on 1 hp, but on a range of HP, say the last 15% (rounded down), though I don`t know what this number should be exactly.
thoughts?