Mr. Sundertastic doesn't actually have to destroy loot to make sunder effective:
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.
I understand that's not your primary concern, but I thought I'd mention it.
Not sure if this is where I'm supposed to post this, but I have a dilemma.
One of my players, the fighter, plans on taking Improved Sunder. At first, I wasn't concerned, but after I mentioned that sundering is going to hurt there treasure/loot (the normal reason most players don't sunder), my player/s just shrugged their shoulders and said they didn't care. They rather nerf the encounter by sundering all the bad-guys weapons, and thus essentially remove any difficulty from melee weapon attackers, then worry about treasure.
Not sure how I feel about this. I know I can throw things that don't use weapons, or spellcasters, but I feel I agree with them. By sundering weapons, my melee attackers are essentially no longer relevant.
Anybody have this problem, or am I worrying for nothing?
I don't think you'll find this to be much of a problrm in the long-run. Tons of encounters use natural attacks, or ranged attacks, or magical attacks, or ... you get the picture. Sunder also won't always succeed. And many foes will have more than one weapon. I haven't heard anyone complain that Sunder unbalanced their game. Of coure there is a first time for everything, so let us know if your players succeed with their nefarious equipment-destroying plans.
Not that great. A weapon with the Broken condition can still be used at -2 attack / damage, can't it?
|
Firstly with the new "Broken" condition the Sundering Fighter doesn't have to destroy the weapon. But if you use lots of humanoid opponents with weapons it's not exactly a huge loss. A back-up weapon never hurts your NPC and every round the fighter spends destroying a weapon is one less attack doing hit point damage to foes. Play your NPC's with a bit of intelligence. If the big fighter starts breaking weapons, focus on him.
Now depending on how you interpret the rules there's a conundrum I've found that might be a copy paste error, that is magic items can't be sundered by weapons with lower enhancement bonuses. Also remember each +1 enhancement bonus adds 2 hardness and 10 hit points to a weapon.
Your real worry will come when the fighter gets a hold of an Adamantine weapon.
--Vrock Crusher
The thing is, for that to be a copy - paste error, they'd have to be copying from D&D 3.0. They removed that rule in 3.5, and apparently it's back.
The thing is, for that to be a copy - paste error, they'd have to be copying from D&D 3.0. They removed that rule in 3.5, and apparently it's back.
Though it would have been nice if they added the immunity in the Sunder section. It's kind of a niche rule, placed where it is.
Not that great. A weapon with the Broken condition can still be used at -2 attack / damage, can't it?
And it loses its crit range/multiplier, but basically, yeah.
I'm surprised that Broken does so little now that I read it more carefully.
@Renvale999:
Would you be as concerned if your player said that he'd focus on Disarm or/and Steal maneuvers? That achieves much the same effect and does not really scare anybody either, or does it?
It is perfectly viable for him to focus on Sunder - but CMDs tend to be higher than ACs and even when sundering successfully items aren't necessarily destroyed in one hit. A round he spends sundering is a round he does not spend in killing.
I think their attitude scared me a bit more then the actual game mechanic. I don't run GM vs Group games. I don't really see the point. I don't want to get into an escalating war with my players of who can be more nefarious then the other person.
Then don't. If you're running a pre-made adventure, just run it as it's written. If you're making up everything, just give them the same variety you would for any other group. (Which should include an occasional fight that their tactics a great against, and an occasional fight that poses a particular challenge for them.)
If the players would rather beat encounters based on character build rather than having tough fights, who cares?
in my group one of the characters was playing a fighter that was a disarm specialist. and while it could be a pain in the butt, he also found himself at the mercy of alot of fights. At mid level it will feel REALLY powerful but as you escalate higher, the effect wont be AS pronounced. besides, there is a great way to ensure that a low CMD fighter cant successfully sunder anything for a while... bugbears who get angry about their morningstar being busted are likely to grapple and bite.
Disagree with you on the whole AC's being lower then CMD...in my experience they are always, always lower, by a lot. Current fighter is level 5 and has an AC of 24 (+1 Full Plate, +1 Dex, Heavy Steel Shield and Shield Focus) and his CMD is only 20 (10+5 Base Attack, 18 Strength +4 and +1 Dex)
I don't know that I'd use a character that has sunk basically everything into AC (at too great a cost in damage-dealing ability, IMHO, but I know others will feel differently) as the counterpoint to that argument.
Now I'm going to have to look at the ACs/CMDs of the players in the game I'm running...
in my group one of the characters was playing a fighter that was a disarm specialist. and while it could be a pain in the butt, he also found himself at the mercy of alot of fights. At mid level it will feel REALLY powerful but as you escalate higher, the effect wont be AS pronounced. besides, there is a great way to ensure that a low CMD fighter cant successfully sunder anything for a while... bugbears who get angry about their morningstar being busted are likely to grapple and bite.Which is all fine and dandy, except the fighter has a high CMB bonus and a bugbear's CMD is a paltry 16, which my current fighter can hit on a 7 or better on the D20 roll, and get out of the grapple almost every time.
sorry a bugbear is a bad example. but my point is still that if an enemy has lost his weapon there are more ways for him to fight. as well as retreat. the sunder is only as big a pain in the ass as you make it.
... I think that his improved sunder ability negates a certain TYPE of NPC, which I don't think players should have an ability that negates an entire genre of NPC's.
I don't have a problem with that. He has built his character specifically to be effective against one type of encounter, while sacrificing quite a bit (too much, in my opinion) of his potential capability against other types of encounters. So let him shine in those encounters that play to his strengths, knowing that there will be many others in which his build won't help him much at all.
As to your previous post about them coasting through some encounters, growing cocky and then complaining when an encounter goes against them, so long as you aren't consistently designing things specifically to get at their weaknesses and using them to replace encounters that play to their strengths, they have nothing to complain about. They can't (or at least shouldn't) expect you to always throw them cakewalks. Just keep it logical and balanced.
My experience has been that sunder is more effective against non-melee characters. A sundered bow, spell component pouch, or holy symbol is far more damaging to an NPC than a sundered weapon. YMMV, of course.
Because it makes the game very easy for them. And when players start steamrolling encounters, they get a sense of "We are awesome, nothing can hurt us" so then you tailor an encounter or two to prey on their weakeness's and said players get upset because they feel you're only doing it because they kicked your ass earlier....as I said, it gets into a GM vs Group thing which I'm trying to avoid.
I think that most players are intelligent people and know what they are doing when they pick a particular strategy. They're likely to get upset if you continually avoid their strengths and exploit their weaknesses, but that would only happen if you were getting into a "GM vs Group thing".
@Renvale999:
Would you be as concerned if your player said that he'd focus on Disarm or/and Steal maneuvers? That achieves much the same effect and does not really scare anybody either, or does it?
It is perfectly viable for him to focus on Sunder - but CMDs tend to be higher than ACs and even when sundering successfully items aren't necessarily destroyed in one hit. A round he spends sundering is a round he does not spend in killing.
Doesn't he debuff and do damage with greater sunder? and do not forget sundering effects armor too so rounds spent sundering accomplish a lot more.
Honestly though it is just as balanced as the other combat maneuvers, your lucky they aren't playing a half orc breaker barbarian, with the smash (I think thats what it is called) feat, and a broken adamantium weapon. (I use a maul, yes I am building this character)
DM vs Group can be a hard thing to avoid the appearance of sometimes, especially if the PC's are "hunting" to find it.
In your case:
If you suddenly remove all weapon wielders from the game when the fighter takes a feat to sunder/disarm/whatever then you are missing the point.
You should instead just.. keep doing what you are doing.. Design some encounters with weapons, some as casters, some with natural attacks, etc. This lets the fighter shine sometimes and not at others.. which is just as it should be.
A particular recurring villain may get wise to their tricks and take means to escape them.. otherwise though just do what you have been doing up until now. Then the PC's can't legitimately complain that you are changing things to screw them.
The fact of the matter is- a PC who chooses to spec into disarm/sunder can't expect every encounter is going to feature their use. The same is true of spellcasters who spec into mind effecting spells or someone who spec's into tripping. Some things are just flat out more effective against some creatures and less effective (or impossible) against others.
Its just part of how the game works.
Don't worry about the PC's choosing to make Sunder an issue. Just roll with it like you would anything else. He'll shine sometimes, and sometimes the light will fall on someone else.
-S
|
Disagree with you on the whole AC's being lower then CMD...in my experience they are always, always lower, by a lot. Current fighter is level 5 and has an AC of 24 (+1 Full Plate, +1 Dex, Heavy Steel Shield and Shield Focus) and his CMD is only 20 (10+5 Base Attack, 18 Strength +4 and +1 Dex) and all my other players are the same, their AC is higher. I find that CMD's are stupid easy to hit, especially if you're a fighter. So yeah, he can spend a round sundering a weapon, but if he even if doesn't break it, it gains a -2 to hit, and now they have to hit his 24 AC at a -2, effectively nerfing that particular NPC.
Bottomline, as a fighter, you're going to succeed on your CMB check most the time due to your high BAB and strength, and since CMD's are so low all the time.
Don't forget a lot of things that add to AC also add to CMD. "A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD." Most creatures aren't wearing +10 armor or getting +3 shield bonus either and instead of size subtracting from AC larger creatures get bonuses to their CMD.
Let's take some random creatures from the B2: (AC/CMD)
Protean, Keketar: 32/48
Scylla: 31/47
Qlippoth, Augnagar: 29/36
Nereid: 25/37
Lurker in the Light: 18/18
Nightshade, Nightcrawler: 33/47
Gryph: 13/13
Giant, Marsh: 21/31
Daemon, Thanadaemon: 27/34
Blindheim: 16/16
Agathion, Leonal: 27/36
Urdefhan: 16/18
Out of a dozen completely random monsters 1/4 of them have the same ac and cmd. And notice none of them have higher ac than cmd. I randomly chose pages. Now, its possible that's a fluke of Bestiary 2, but its what I had open for another thread, so that's what I used. YBMV.
So, if your experience is that AC is always higher than CMD, I suggest you take another look. In MY experience its the opposite.
In the last campaign I played in my fighter had the highest AC in the party at 33, yet had an easily higher CMD of 40 something. CMD scales as you level much quicker than AC in my experience, especially for full bab classes, since you're adding your level to your CMD.
So, if you're fighting mostly NPC's and other humanoids, you might find AC more often higher than CMD at low levels. If they focus on AC.
He wants to shoot himself in the foot. You notified him that he will be shooting himself in the foot. He indicated he is quite happy to do so.
So, allow him to blow his foot off. When he asks where all the loot is, inform him that it is in many tiny pieces by his own actions. And for what gain?
Not to say that sundering isn't a bad idea in general (I do agree on that point) but you do realize that you can sunder and "break" and item without rendering it useless to you right?
Also you can sunder anything now -- including staves, wands, potions, armor, robes, cloaks... and so on. So IF he gets to a point where the monsters are using treasure he could sunder it to make the fight easier without breaking the gear into uselessness.
Except then you're going out of your way, and going after an item only marginally easier to break than the wearer of that item, to apply a very minor debuff on par with level 1 effects. Even if you are not level 1. And if you are, stabbing them in the face is substantially easier.
I'm not arguing over the usefulness of sundering -- there are situations where it could be good (but those are situations, not the general rule). I just wanted to clear up the misconception that sundering == no treasure.
I really do not think you need to be overly concerned. If you are running a variety of encounters, everyone usually seems to get a chance to shine. In my group, the paladin who smite evil's seems to really dominate against evil outsiders. But he should. Against other types, he is helpful, but not the "super duper shiny star".
You do not have to become a "dm vs group" mind set at all. Especially, if the group doesn't mind this type of character. As others have said, there are LOTS of encounters that sundering isn't really as good as attacking the critter.
Just me thoughts.
Greg
|
Check this article out. It dealt with a more situational example of a ranger's favored enemies, but I think the broad ideas behind it applies to your sunder scenario as well. Good luck.
How My Ranger Stopped Encountering Undead
p.s. Personally, I never bought into the maneuver master version the the fighter. I rather use the time to kill the BBEG instead of sunder/trip/disarm. Any BBEG worth its salt will have minions as its first layer of defense. Sunder the BBEG's weapon? He'll get swarmed. Kill the minions? Congrats he just solve your sundering problem for you. And how about...sundering his weapon? *commences evil laughter that gets progressively out of control till the narrator chokes and falls over
|
To the OP (Troubleshooter):
I would highly recommend that you listen to Episode #011 of Chronicles: Pathfinder Podcast. We did a very lengthy Deck of Many Things discussion on sundering in this last episode. It's available for download here.
My strong suspicion is that your player(s) have heard this discusison and that you have not. I would correct that imbalance, if I were you.
Short strokes: no, for the most part, they aren't wrecking their treasure. I suggest you look closely at the Mending cantrip and the 2nd level Make Whole spell. There have been significant changes to these spells in Pathfinder over the 3.5 versions of the spells. In particular, Make Whole can now restore destroyed magic items at ZERO cost to your players.
Note: The Make Whole spell will fix a broken wand, rod or stave -- and will even fix a destroyed wand, rod or stave if it is not a charged item. Virtually all wands are charged -- but most rods and some staves are not.
As for the "equal or better enhancement bonus" to damage a magic weapon... this is definitely a copy+paste error and is not intended to be present in Pathfinder RPG.
This rule was present in 3.0 and was removed when the hardness and additional hit points for magic items/sundering was added to the game. It was revised in 3.5 at pages 165-167 of the PHB. Those rules are reproduced in PFRPG at pages 173-175 of the Core Rules, word for word from the 3.5 SRD.
HOWEVER, on the release of 3.5, WotC missed revising an entry in the DMG under magic weapons, initially at page 222. This entry is plainly in conflict with the new rules on sundering and breakage at page 165-167 of the 3.5 PHB.
This was later revised by errata by WotC. If you check your Collector's Edition DMG at page 222, you will see that the "equal of better enhancement bonus" to damage a magic weapon was removed and now reads: "Hardness and Hit points: Each +1 of Enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon or shield's hardness and 10 to its hit points. (See Table 8–8, page 158 of the Player’s Handbook, for common weapon hardnesses and hit points.) The change was made to the DMG removing the older entry based on the 3.0 rule as the hardness rules and hit point rules were revised in ver 3.5.
However, the revision to page 222 of the DMG was not carried over into the SRD. If you download the SRD at Wizard's site, look at Magic Items II.rtf and at the bottom of page 8 (in Word) , you will see that the words in the SRD are the same as was used in the release version of the 3.5 DMG as the SRD was not updated to reflect the errata WotC later released for this rule. That error is carried in, word for word, into Pathfinder RPG at page 468.
Accordingly, The words at page 468 of the PFRPG Core Rules are definitely in error because of this copy+paste error. I actually wrote Jason Bulmahn and James Jacobs on this point earlier this week. The following is the suggested errata:
Page 468, 2nd Column, 3rd Paragraph
"Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his
weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck."
Should be deleted and replaced with the words:
"Hardness and Hit points: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon's hardness and 10 to its hit points. (See Table 7-12 at p. 175)."
Accordingly, The words at page 468 of the PFRPG Core Rules are definitely in error because of this copy+paste error. I actually wrote Jason Bulmahn and James Jacobs on this point earlier this week. The following is the suggested errata:
Page 468, 2nd Column, 3rd Paragraph
"Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his
weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck."Should be deleted and replaced with the words:
"Hardness and Hit points: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon's hardness and 10 to its hit points. (See Table 7-12 at p. 175)."
Actually, in another thread..James Jacobs wrote they liked the rule of requiring an equal or greater enhancement. That is why they brought it back from 3.0
I believe this is the link.. somewhere down the page James writes his responce.
Greg
|
|
Actually, in another thread..James Jacobs wrote they liked the rule of requiring an equal or greater enhancement. That is why they brought it back from 3.0
I believe this is the link.. somewhere down the page James writes his responce.
Greg
I've read what he said. Respectfully, I suspect this is not the case. Yeah - you read that correctly - I'm saying James is probably wrong about this.
The entry is there on page 468 because the 3.5 SRD was never updated to the 3.0 rule. If the reason were otherwise, then reference to this would have been made in the sundering rules and the rule would also have been expressed in a way so that it applied equally to all magic items and not to only weapons. Note that this rule does NOT apply to shields or armor, as drafted.
Moreover, James explanation that "destroyed" is DESTROYED is final and akin to death for magic items? That view is just not the rules of Pathfinder. Make Whole fixes a destroyed magic item and restores its magical properties; that's a major change to the item repair rules in Pathfinder. It may well be that James overlooked it. He's human.
It may be that there is now a present intention to keep the 3.0 rule. But if so, the rule as noted is expressed unclearly and unequally to all enhancement bonuses for all gear. If the intention was to keep it, it is hard to rationalize why it would apply to weapons but not to shields.
So yes, it arises because of a copy+paste error from the 3.5 SRD. Yes, even if James Jacobs says otherwise in the forums. It's that clear.
If James says there is an intention to keep the rule just the same? Then that's his call, obviously. I would suggest that the sundering rules themselves actually make reference to the entry under magic weapons, if that is so.
It is "clear" that is your interpretation. I like it. I keep it. You do not, you make an adjustment. Simple. :)
Greg
It is "clear" that is your interpretation. I like it. I keep it. You do not, you make an adjustment. Simple. :)
Greg
I'm not talking about liking or not liking the rule; I'm talking about how the entry on page 468 made it in to the Core Rules.
That's a distinction with a difference.
Quite. I believe it is suposed to be there as intent, you believe it was an error. Maybe time will tell which of us is wrong. Until then, it is based on how we like to run the games with our groups.
Greg
(Not OP) I find that -intensely- interesting. Thank you for bringing this point of contention to light.
As it stands, my group has not used Sunder for as long as I've played with them. They decided that it was too costly for players to Sunder enemy equipment (which was their to-be equipment), and they didn't want their equipment sundered, so the players and DMs have kept a gentleman's agreement in place that one wouldn't Sunder if the other wouldn't.
So, the rules system is viewed as so grievous that they don't use it. And that, my friends, fails my acid test.
Before I became aware of Make Whole, I had offered my players a compromise; we would begin using Sunder, but we would change the rules to the following:
"When magic items are destroyed, they can mend themselves back to the Broken condition when all of the pieces are put back together, over the course of one day. Magic items can still be permanently destroyed, but it should take the attentions of somebody powerful enough to disenchant it, or full destruction of the remaining fragments to accomplish it. Scattering the pieces is enough to prevent them from mending, but they still detect as magical, and will repair if gathered at a later time. While independent wizards may charge a modest fee to destroy a magic item, churches may offer to do it for free if they determine that it would promote their agenda.
In brief (and with few exceptions), magic items can be temporarily destroyed in combat, and permanently destroyed outside of combat."
The new Make Whole is a step in the right direction, though I'm still unsure if I like it quite the way it is. Characters are probably going to be keeping pretty up-to-date equipment -- when the fighter first gets his +2 sword, you can pretty much guarantee that will be all he uses until he gets his +3. And the party spellcaster who has access to Make Whole will very likely not have the ability to reach double that caster level and thus repair a broken sword, until they've leveled up and probably gotten a new weapon entirely. So unless your characters stay stocked with a swath of magic items creatable at well below their level, Make Whole serves as a way to recoup losses long after they're incurred, sometimes only to resell them at half value if they've already been replaced.
Further, some weapons once Sundered would not conceivably be capable of receiving repair at all. A +5 enhancement bonus sword would require a caster level of 40 to repair, which may not even be narratively logical even at level 20; much less as a result of a theoretically-common maneuver executed in combat! You hardly see a plot hook involving tracking down an epic level magus arising from an evoker casting fireball, yet for a fighter to wield that power ...
Further, some weapons once Sundered would not conceivably be capable of receiving repair at all. A +5 enhancement bonus sword would require a caster level of 40 to repair, which may not even be narratively logical even at level 20; much less as a result of a theoretically-common maneuver executed in combat! You hardly see a plot hook involving tracking down an epic level magus arising from an evoker casting fireball, yet for a fighter to wield that power ...
To be fair, in order to sunder a +5 sword they need to have a +5 sword so they don't really need it.
I like sunder I use it all the time, it is great for the wildshaping druid and the unarmed monk.
|
|
"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. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance."
So no, it really can't.
CoDzilla is right. This was an intentional change to make sundering useful for someone with a high CMB and heavily enchanted weapon, but not something that would destroy a PC's 100k weapon arbitrarily.
They did a pretty good job with it actually, IMHO.
|
|
"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. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance."
So no, it really can't.
You have to be 6th to fix a +1 item, 12th to fix a +2 and 18th to fix a +3, under the RAW. Fixing +1 items is not that hard at the level the PCs will be encountering them. It's "doable".
I would suggest, however, that the RAW for Make Whole could use some revision here.
Pathfinder has already removed the caster level check to make an item in the round of errata in June, 2010.
But now, even though Pathfinder has removed the requirement that there be a minimum caster level to make an item, the rules double down on the old caster level requirement to use the Make Whole spell to fix it? Why is that a good rule?
Seriously - why?
The caster level check in the spell description for Make Whole seems to be a carry-over from 3.5 SRD's magic item creation rules. I hope Jason Bulmahn decides to change the way Make Whole works in light of the current magic item creation rules for PFRPG.
I would suggest that Make Whole should operate to make an item whole if the caster is the same as the item level. That seems balanced to me.
BTW, for those suggesting this was deliberate and how conscious it is of saving precious and valuable items from untimely attack...
Consider the use of Trick Shot vs a wand. Or sundering vs a +4 shield -- or any number of carried rods or staves. None of this "equal or better enhancement bonus" stuff applies to save those items from destruction.
The hit points of significantly expensive weapons are already enhanced as is their hardness. A mid-level sword (admittedly on the higher end) like a +3 mithril blade has a hardness of 21 and 35 hit points. These things aren't fragile.
Until you throw adamantine into the works, the +2 hardness, +10 hit points rule works pretty well. Adamantine screws everything up. Its too cheap and it gets all of its sundering bonuses without further enchantment. That 3.5 rule is just broken, imo.
I'd suggest:
Proposed Rule for Pathfinder RPG: Adamantine ignores the first 10 points of hardness. It ignores a further +2 points of hardness for every +1 enhancement bonus on the adamantine weapon.
Practical Effect:
- Unenchanted Adamatine cleaves through normal steel when used to sunder (sounds right to me);
- A +5 Adamantine sword (pretty epic) cleaves through a +5 Cold Iron Avenger, but the Avenger has some significant hit points to get through before it is notched and finally, destroyed (also pretty epic);
- A +2 Adamatine blade ignores 14 points of hardness, but when pitted against a +3 mithril weapon, still has 7 points of hardness to overcome before it starts doing damage to the blade. Even still, the +3 Mithril longsword has 35 hit points before it is destroyed (sounds fair to me, too).
|
|
(Not OP) I find that -intensely- interesting. Thank you for bringing this point of contention to light.
As it stands, my group has not used Sunder for as long as I've played with them. They decided that it was too costly for players to Sunder enemy equipment (which was their to-be equipment), and they didn't want their equipment sundered, so the players and DMs have kept a gentleman's agreement in place that one wouldn't Sunder if the other wouldn't.
So, the rules system is viewed as so grievous that they don't use it. And that, my friends, fails my acid test.
As I mentioned during the podcast, your group's "gentleman's agreement" on sundering seems to be the default position taken by most groups.
When a rule system is so threatening that people agree not to use it, in some sort of MAD detente? Yeah - that's a clear sign of failure in the underlying rules system.
Part of the problem with the underlying sundering, item breakage and repair rules in the game is that they just aren't often enough to get some top level attention. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" and all that.
In fairness, Pathfinder did attempt to fix this from 3.5. It got much of it right. With some tweaks on some underlying remaining rules, (and some clarifications to others) I think it's a very workable rule system that can see some use at the table by both the players and GM -- and we can put the MAD detente "gentlemen's agreement" aside.
"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. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance."
So no, it really can't.
CoDzilla is right. This was an intentional change to make sundering useful for someone with a high CMB and heavily enchanted weapon, but not something that would destroy a PC's 100k weapon arbitrarily.
They did a pretty good job with it actually, IMHO.
Your logic doesn't follow at all. Make Whole has nothing to do with whether it is or is not effective when used offensively as it is a defensive tool. If the 100k weapon gets broke, too bad. You can't fix any decent items with it, so it's a pointless and token gesture. It also, once again ensures the path to victory is spells. They do that a lot around here.
The fact of the matter is that there are several types of mechanical problems. There's the kind where things are just too weak. Raising numbers fixes that. There's the kind where they don't apply. Adding more adaptability fixes that. And then there's the kind where something is fundamentally and conceptually flawed. Those are completely unfixable.
Guess what category breaking your own treasure is in?
I feel like you just disagreed with someone who agreed with you O.o
They really do need a mechanic for something like craft to fix destroyed items though
You know, it would actually be an interesting way to address power creep.
Between Disarm and Sunder, it would encourage players to invest in multiple weapons (or not immediately liquidate duplicates). It doesn't hurt that Pathfinder characters would begin looking like Merisiel or Valeros, decked to the nines in blades!
I can't vouch for anybody else, but the upcoming Ultimate Magic book makes me think of a Pathfinder-version of Complete Arcane -- and the Complete era forward was when I noticed the power creep really gain momentum in the 3.5 system. I feel that it stands to reason that as Pathfinder continues the 3.5 tradition of adding in modular subsystems and releasing more and more feats, prestige classes, archetypes, traits, and spells that can be combined in unexpected ways -- that you'll see a general increase of power similar to that of 3.5.
So releasing monsters that make use of Sunder rules, which would encourage players to split their equipment between multiple weapons, has potential as an organic way of combating power creep. Though it's the spellcasters I'd keep my eye on ...
|
|
I feel like you just disagreed with someone who agreed with you O.o
They really do need a mechanic for something like craft to fix destroyed items though
They already have one. Problem is, it costs 1/2 of the material costs of the item (i.e., 25% of the retail cost) to fix it with crafting/or the create item feat.
Considering the items you would probably want to use it on, that's a lot of dough.
I feel like you just disagreed with someone who agreed with you O.o
They really do need a better mechanic for something like craft to fix destroyed items thoughThey already have one. Problem is, it costs 1/2 of the material costs of the item (i.e., 25% of the retail cost) to fix it with crafting/or the create item feat.
Considering the items you would probably want to use it on, that's a lot of dough.
hmmm, there fixed
|
|
"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. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance."
So no, it really can't.
CoDzilla is right. This was an intentional change to make sundering useful for someone with a high CMB and heavily enchanted weapon, but not something that would destroy a PC's 100k weapon arbitrarily.
They did a pretty good job with it actually, IMHO.
Your logic doesn't follow at all. Make Whole has nothing to do with whether it is or is not effective when used offensively as it is a defensive tool. If the 100k weapon gets broke, too bad. You can't fix any decent items with it, so it's a pointless and token gesture. It also, once again ensures the path to victory is spells. They do that a lot around here.
The fact of the matter is that there are several types of mechanical problems. There's the kind where things are just too weak. Raising numbers fixes that. There's the kind where they don't apply. Adding more adaptability fixes that. And then there's the kind where something is fundamentally and conceptually flawed. Those are completely unfixable.
Guess what category breaking your own treasure is in?
Even when I agree with you, you have to be difficult...
You can't break the 100k weapon unless you are using a weapons that is even more valuable, because you have to have a higher enhancement bonus to sunder a weapon.
The Melee PC is generally going to be the one with the fancier weapon, aka the sunderer rather than the sunderee. And as the sunderer, you can decide to just make it "broken" rather than destroy it (although broken isn't that great a deterrent...)
If the person they are fighting has a weapon with a higher enchantment than the PC, if the PC wins they get the fancier weapon to replace the less fancy one, recently broken.
As to magic items, even if I didn't have improved sunder I wouldn't much worry about the AoO from something with low CMD, as they are a) Unlikely to hit and B) Unlikely to do much damage if they do. But when dealing with low CMD, it's generally a caster who you want to grapple (if you don't just hit them) rather than sunder some object.
This is why I generally don't take most of the improved feats, even as a fighter. You aren't going to use them against things you are worried about getting AoO from anyway, so it isn't that big a boost.
Sunder isn't anything to be wary of. It's very situational.