Do you use sunder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I like the sunder combat maneuver. I've got an oracle of battle who runs around with an adamantine falchion and greater sunder, and I love being able to shatter weapons and armor completely in one strike. Enemy has a nasty magic weapon? Break it!

Some of the other players have gotten angry at me for "destroying loot" when I have done this. We ran into some mooks lately who had +1 greatswords. I just flat out broke one and thanks to greater sunder the damage that carried over was enough to kill the dude. I crit'ed on the sunder, so it was somewhere in the realm of 50 damage or so. (We're level 12 and by this point I'm running around with 28 strength in most battles)

Do you use sunder? Do you like it? Are your players discouraged from using it because they don't like the thought of losing out on loot?

At level 12, destroying a +1 magical weapon is piffling. Even had we sold it it's only 250 gp a piece. Is losing out on an insignificant amount of gold and an item no one in the party will use worth me being too afraid of making everyone else mad to use the feats I bought? What is the most fair way to address this?


Nah sunder away, they might get annoyed every once in awhile but if you really destroy something worthwhile your high enough level where the wizard laughs, waves his hand, and makes reality believe it never happened.

At lower levels you can't sunder any of the good stuff anyway so I've never seen it hurt loot then either. Not sure why so many people are put off from using it.


Radu the Wanderer wrote:

At level 12, destroying a +1 magical weapon is piffling. Even had we sold it it's only 250 gp a piece.

Why 250 gp?

It should be 50% of market price, which means with a +1 weapon 1150 gp + half the base price of the weapon. Even at lvl 12, that is not negligible.

So yes, I think using sunder to destroy magical armor or weapons is not too clever and I can understand that the players in your group are complaining.

Silver Crusade

I'ma agin it. Its agin the natural order.

I am in the camp that it destroys valuable loot.


Hyla Arborea wrote:
Radu the Wanderer wrote:

At level 12, destroying a +1 magical weapon is piffling. Even had we sold it it's only 250 gp a piece.

Why 250 gp?

It should be 50% of market price, which meanst with a +1 weapon 1150 gp + half the base price of the weapon. Even at lvl 12, that is not negligible.

So yes, I think using sunder to destroy magical armor or weapons is not too clever and I can understand that the players in your group are complaining.

I think he is referring to the share each party member would get (and its easy to forget that a magic weapon is also a masterwork one).


pipedreamsam wrote:


I think he is referring to the share each party member would get (and its easy to forget that a magic weapon is also a masterwork one).

Ah, that may well be.

Its easy to forget that the default party size is 4, when you have 5-6 PCs in you own game. ;)


Ok, right. fine.

I destroyed 293 gp, 7 sp, and 5 cp worth of treasure a piece. Yes, at level 12, that is insignificant.

I think that my standard procedure going forward is to continue to sunder when I want to (ie: when I think it is advantageous) and if someone (like, say, the greed-I mean, thrifty wizard) wants to have a detect magic up and running to tell me what not to strike, that's fine.

I've got the feats. I'm not going to stop using them. I have yet to sunder any actual, useful item. I've broken a couple of polearms to destroy a phalanx, shattered some stone giant great clubs (dropping their damage capacity down a lot), and that's about it. This "super valuable" +1 greatsword is the first "loot" item I've destroyed, and we lost out on an utterly insignificant amount of wealth because of it.

I didn't start paying DND to build a business or micromanage my wealth. I can do that in real life. I can't wander across the battlefield dispensing liberal doses of smackdown in real life. If the other party members really object to it, I will reign it in a bit, but I bought the stupid feats, so I should be able to use them!


Radu the Wanderer wrote:

Ok, right. fine.

I destroyed 293 gp, 7 sp, and 5 cp worth of treasure a piece. Yes, at level 12, that is insignificant.

I think that my standard procedure going forward is to continue to sunder when I want to (ie: when I think it is advantageous) and if someone (like, say, the greed-I mean, thrifty wizard) wants to have a detect magic up and running to tell me what not to strike, that's fine.

I've got the feats. I'm not going to stop using them. I have yet to sunder any actual, useful item. I've broken a couple of polearms to destroy a phalanx, shattered some stone giant great clubs (dropping their damage capacity down a lot), and that's about it. This "super valuable" +1 greatsword is the first "loot" item I've destroyed, and we lost out on an utterly insignificant amount of wealth because of it.

I didn't start paying DND to build a business or micromanage my wealth. I can do that in real life. I can't wander across the battlefield dispensing liberal doses of smackdown in real life. If the other party members really object to it, I will reign it in a bit, but I bought the stupid feats, so I should be able to use them!

There is nothing wrong with checking with your detect magic using buddies if an enemy weapon is enchanted or not.


I've been in a game where a player tried to abuse sunder, it wasn't pretty. He went out of his way to either get charmed/mind controlled and sundered the gear of party members, or when a party member got mind controlled he would sunder their gear as a way to "remove the threat." By the end of the game the 4 of us were all level 9 characters with 3 magic items found in the group, all belonging to captain sunder. He was asked to not come back for the next game.


Radu the Wanderer wrote:

Ok, right. fine.

I destroyed 293 gp, 7 sp, and 5 cp worth of treasure a piece. Yes, at level 12, that is insignificant.

I think that my standard procedure going forward is to continue to sunder when I want to (ie: when I think it is advantageous) and if someone (like, say, the greed-I mean, thrifty wizard) wants to have a detect magic up and running to tell me what not to strike, that's fine.

I've got the feats. I'm not going to stop using them. I have yet to sunder any actual, useful item. I've broken a couple of polearms to destroy a phalanx, shattered some stone giant great clubs (dropping their damage capacity down a lot), and that's about it. This "super valuable" +1 greatsword is the first "loot" item I've destroyed, and we lost out on an utterly insignificant amount of wealth because of it.

I didn't start paying DND to build a business or micromanage my wealth. I can do that in real life. I can't wander across the battlefield dispensing liberal doses of smackdown in real life. If the other party members really object to it, I will reign it in a bit, but I bought the stupid feats, so I should be able to use them!

Hey man just chill out it isn't that big of a deal no one is trying to be nit picky (and if they are its in a playful lighthearted manner).

The fact is so what if your party gets mad at you adventuring parties are notorious for in fighting. Like many things in Pathfinder sundering is a double edged sword, sometimes it hurts sometimes,it helps and sometimes your actions could be better spent doing something else. The same goes if the wizard casts something like fireball and your fighter happens to be in the radius and tanks his will save. Sundering just has a more lasting effect than some HP damage and that is why you are getting some heat for it (some people can really be copper pinchers). No you are not wrong for using the sunder feat and point out to your party the times in which it has helped.


I have a character that is starting to use Sunder in PFS, so I'll answer this question.

The first thing I want to say is "Don't sunder items unless you really have to.". Why? Because it's a pain in the azz to fix them and lots of GMs (and players apparently) don't know how to deal with it properly.

Second thing I want to say is that it's a really fun and cool way to "disarm" dangerous opponents.

Fixing Items
------------
Non-magical items can be fixed by almost every level spellcaster, so there's absolutely no reason anyone should be bellyaching that you sundered a masterwork greatsword. The Mend spell fixes D4 points of damage every 10 minutes, so it's just a matter of time.

Repairing most magic items, you have to be a caster level = 3 x enhancement bonus

It takes double that amount to repair a destroyed magic items.

So for example, a +1 greatsword needs a level 3 spellcaster to repair it, and a level 6 spellcaster to fix if destroyed. A suit of +2 Full Plate would need a level 6 caster to repair and a level 12 caster to fix from destroyed.

You can fix destroyed magic items with "Make Whole". Once a single point of damage has been repaired, you can continue repairing the item with Mend.

So sometimes, you've messed up if you've sundered a nice item. But it might be just a matter of hiring a high level caster to cast Make Whole and then someone in the party repairs it the rest of the way. So likely, very little harm is done.

The exception to the rule is if you're in a Monte Hall campaign and the GM is giving out +4 greatswords at level 7 and you've just sundered it. In that case you probably owe everyone an apology (and pizza) then. :)


Mogart wrote:
I've been in a game where a player tried to abuse sunder, it wasn't pretty. He went out of his way to either get charmed/mind controlled and sundered the gear of party members, or when a party member got mind controlled he would sunder their gear as a way to "remove the threat." By the end of the game the 4 of us were all level 9 characters with 3 magic items found in the group, all belonging to captain sunder. He was asked to not come back for the next game.

Wow, that all happened in one game session?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I enjoy sunder in PFS, because it doesn't destroy loot you actually get access to!

In a regular game, it can be useful, but it can get annoying too.

If you think the amount of gold is negligible, but the party disagrees, you have some options. You can concentrate on sundering non-valuable objects where possible - spell component pouches, holy symbols, mundane objects. You can use something that deals less damage when attacking magical items - to avoid critting and destroying instead of just breaking it. You can offer to have the value of the destroyed item taken out of your share of the split loot, so it never costs your party money (in this case, you would get 1,150 + some less loot so the rest of the party doesn't suffer). You can make sure you understand what items your party members would want, so you can avoid sundering and destroying those.


Dren Everblack wrote:
Mogart wrote:
I've been in a game where a player tried to abuse sunder, it wasn't pretty. He went out of his way to either get charmed/mind controlled and sundered the gear of party members, or when a party member got mind controlled he would sunder their gear as a way to "remove the threat." By the end of the game the 4 of us were all level 9 characters with 3 magic items found in the group, all belonging to captain sunder. He was asked to not come back for the next game.
Wow, that all happened in one game session?

The first time, the DM charmed him and it cost us 4 magic items. The DM was controlling him and figured that it would be a great way to remove some items from the campaign. The second time it happened, captain sunder thought it would be funny to break the remaining character's weapon when he got mind controlled. A little while later he made a captain sunder song, and we kicked him out.

Essentially the first time it wasn't quite his fault, but that is how his character fought and the DM took advantage of it. The second time, he said he did it because he thought it was funny.

We had amassed a fair number of magic items and in 2 game sessions everything was gone. (one where he got controlled, and the other where someone else got nailed)


Mogart wrote:

The first time, the DM charmed him and it cost us 4 magic items. The DM was controlling him and figured that it would be a great way to remove some items from the campaign. The second time it happened, captain sunder thought it would be funny to break the remaining character's weapon when he got mind controlled. A little while later he made a captain sunder song, and we kicked him out.

Essentially the first time it wasn't quite his fault, but that is how his character fought and the DM took advantage of it. The second time, he said he did it because he thought it was funny.

We had amassed a fair number of magic items and in 2 game sessions everything was gone. (one where he got controlled, and the other where someone else got nailed)

Although I don't approve of his actions - I can see the funny in it. That being said, the PC's in my groups would have handled in "in-game", but then they are an evil party.

Did you say he got himself controlled deliberately?


Dren Everblack wrote:
Mogart wrote:

The first time, the DM charmed him and it cost us 4 magic items. The DM was controlling him and figured that it would be a great way to remove some items from the campaign. The second time it happened, captain sunder thought it would be funny to break the remaining character's weapon when he got mind controlled. A little while later he made a captain sunder song, and we kicked him out.

Essentially the first time it wasn't quite his fault, but that is how his character fought and the DM took advantage of it. The second time, he said he did it because he thought it was funny.

We had amassed a fair number of magic items and in 2 game sessions everything was gone. (one where he got controlled, and the other where someone else got nailed)

Although I don't approve of his actions - I can see the funny in it. That being said, the PC's in my groups would have handled in "in-game", but then they are an evil party.

Did you say he got himself controlled deliberately?

The first time no. The second time, the last player who had magic items other than Captain Sunder got controlled, and Captain Sunder "Sundered." The player of Sunder boy was then laughing for a good 10 minutes.

Feat for feat, I would take Improved Disarm over Improved Sunder any day of the week. It leaves items in tact and party members not angry at you.


No.

At low levels people simply draw another weapon and continue to attack with no big loss of DPR. A masterwork longsword and a regular shortsword aren't THAT much different.

At higher levels you're costing yourself money to repair the items, and it takes a lot of downtime to do so.


Mogart wrote:
Feat for feat, I would take Improved Disarm over Improved Sunder any day of the week. It leaves items in tact and party members not angry at you.

I was just going to say that. Disarm also removes the threat of a weapon (at least for a round or two, he can pick it up again - but pretty sure that provokes AoO), but you won't throw away your own money.

It's really silly, because from a logical point of view Sunder is a great tactical move. But you're really just hurting yourself in the long run, because the treasures are designed around the weapons getting looted, and so in the end you have less wealth than you should have.

So yeah, I would probably complain too if one of my teammates would constantly sunder our loot.


pipedreamsam wrote:


Hey man just chill out it isn't that big of a deal no one is trying to be nit picky (and if they are its in a playful lighthearted manner).

Sorry for the venom. I didn't intend to be snappish. I was reacting mostly to how the other player responded to the loss of less than 300 gp a piece when I broke the greatsword. Some context:

We are playing through Rise of the Runelords, and there is a portion where we were fighting a lot of mooks. In a medium sized rectangular room there were about 6 melee monsters and 6 supporting caster/melee hybrids. We decided that, having just come out of a fight with a flying iron golem, it would be fun to "flex the muscle" in this mook fight.

With some good initiative rolls the cleric threw up a blade barrier in front of the mooks, breaking any line of charges. My oracle threw a wall of fire behind them, facing towards us, so they were forced to choose between slow roasting by staying put, or walking through either the wall of fire or blade barrier to escape. A wall of iron and a one-two combo of dismissing the blade barrier and tipping the wall over took the mooks out of commission. It was great fun.

Since we had dropped a blade barrier, black tentacles, wall of fire, and wall of iron already, I decided to finish the fight off by greater sundering one of the gish types' greatsword. I didn't know it was magic until after wards, whereupon learning that I had destroyed the weapon the party wizard gave me an earful.

I remember how fun it was to just unleash on those guys... we really went for overkill. But, since my overkill ended up costing the party about 300 gp a piece, I'm the bad guy. It made me a little irritated. I feel somewhat like I have "wasted" my Oracle of Battle revelation (Maneuver Mastery: Sunder) since the only time I'm "allowed" to use it is in incidental fights. I suppose the problem isn't with sunder, it's with Greater Sunder and deliberately shattering a weapon. It wasn't an issue when I destroyed two glaives wielded by demonesses last encounter, but they were "only" masterwork items.

...

Sorry for the grousing and the long post, but I guess I'm still a bit annoyed at having my hands tied. My whole character build is based on a few themes: demoralizing through intimidation, crowd control through fog, silence, walls, etc, and de-clawing through sunder.
I've got Power Attack, Intimidating Prowess, Greater Sunder, Shatter Defenses, and Cornugon Smash. They all dovetail very nicely... when I shatter a weapon using sunder while power attacking, the extra damage carries over. Since the attack was a power attack I get a free Demoralize check from Cornugon Smash. I have a fantastic Intimidate score, so usually succeed, even 2 or 3 times in a row. The now shaken, weapon-less enemy is flat-footed against any follow-up strikes until the end of my next turn. Everything builds into everything else. Even the falchion was chosen to maximize critical hits for when I get Sundering Strike next level.

Now, unfortunately, I feel like I've had half my build stripped out. Neither sunder nor demoralize are enough to make a viable build by themselves- I feel it makes you a one trick pony. Having the ability to do both, with spell support, makes me a viable primary combatant and caster. I *LOVE* the Oracle of Battle. It is *EXACTLY* what I enjoy playing, from a mechanics and flavor perspective.

Part of me feels like I have to ask for permission before having the kind of fun I'd like to have. I don't think this is quite the same thing as bringing the assassin character to the Party of Light or the Paladin to the Axis of Evil. I haven't ever groused at the wizard for being a Transmuter and having no evocation blasts. I haven't ever gotten miffed at the rogue for using a bladed scarf. I'm not angry at the cleric for the heavy spell overlap between us... his channel energy makes my free cure spells seem paltry in comparison.... but that's his forte! I think he SHOULD be better. That's his niche, and something he's invested some resources into. I think he SHOULD outshine me in that department.

By the same token, I don't ever complain when the rogue wants to disable a lock instead of letting me smash it. Yeah, I have that half-orc racial sub that gives me +2 to Sunder and +2 to Str on breaking objects, and I have an adamantine weapon..... but the rogue has maxed Disable Device and the Trapspotter rogue talent for a reason as well. I say, "Here's the limelight! It's a trap/lock/device. I could smash it, but it's better if you disable it." If they can't, I can always be a plan B, and I'm happy to give them their moment.

... So I return to the basic question:

Do you think Sunder is a poor option, and why? Would you ban it from your game? Discourage its use? How do you deal with situations like this?

I feel like it might need a little co-operation and communication in the party, but no more so than someone who plays a monk instead of a fighter. Or a party with a druid and alchemist, but no wizard or cleric. Or a party with an investigator type bard instead of a social manipulator.

In other words:

Sunder is no different from any other option, in that you should make allowances for it. Embrace the option, plan your tactics around it, and use it to your advantage. Grousing the player who chooses this option feels no different to me than getting irritated at a cleric who channels negative energy instead of positive. It feels... Gygaxian to me, in that it inspires adversarial thinking. It's like, when the party gets fireball or fly, you never see enemies in clusters and all your battlefields are claustrophobic mineshafts. Or, when the party gets teleport or dimension door your enemies suddenly all have dimensional anchor scrolls. Players should be able to use their abilities and feel like they are contributing, rather than having their abilities diminished or nullified by the environment or by other players shaming them out of those tactics.

I hereby cede the soapbox. Thanks for your time.


Jason S wrote:


The exception to the rule is if you're in a Monte Hall campaign and the GM is giving out +4 greatswords at level 7 and you've just sundered it. In that case you probably owe everyone an apology (and pizza) then. :)

In order to sunder a +4 weapon you have to have a +4 weapon, so if you do then sundering may not be a good option for that extremely high wbl game. Much more efficient to TWF, hard to miss.


Just one thing to add:
About the +1 Greatsword, while I disagree that 300 gp are nothing even for a 12th level party, the Make Whole spell has been mentioned.

You need 6th level for a +1 item, and 12th level for +2. It has no material component or any cost associated with it, except that its a 2nd level spell.

Since oracles can learn it too (also a wizard spell), it might be a good idea if you learn it, and fix the weapons you sunder (use up some unused spellslots before going to bed for it). That way everyone gets to be happy. You get the sunder, and your party gets loot.

Of course if you break +3 stuff, they might still be miffed, especially if its a sword the fighter wanted or something.


That's a good point. Maybe I can ask my GM if I can swap out something for Make Whole. I've got Endurance, a Ring of Sustenance, and Mithril Plate, so I can sleep in my armor and only need 2 hours of shuteye.... 6 hours in which to cast make whole and spam mending sounds fine.

With Darkvision, a maximized Perception score, and Warsight I make a damn fine lookout, and this gives me something else to do while I guard everyone who needs sleep.


Wealth by Level is a guideline.
If you are under it, the GM should know that at-par CR challenges may be more difficult, and vice-versa if you are over it.
Missing out on loot, causing you to be under WBL, should not cause any negative affect on the difficulty of the game,
any more than walking thru a teak forest and deciding not to clear-cut the surrounding 1000km2 and sell it somewhere would.
If your Wealth is lower than WBL, the GM probably should think about sending more wealth your way, whatever the case.
The rules don´t say that Sundering enemy weapons means ´oh well, you don´t get WBL now´.


Hello all,

I am the guy playing the cleric in this game, and I wanted to give you my opinion. It was a little over 1k gold, who cares. I am sure that we have missed secret doors with treasure chests behind them that are worth more. We are 12th lvl and three of the members of our party have access to make whole and mending. Radu could go around sundering all day and night for all I care, I am willing to dump two or three of my 2nd level spell slots to fix the items. It will all work out. Hell, if you want we can just dedicate my bag of holding to collecting the broken pieces of weapons and armor and I will fix them in down time. This issue has several simple solutions, as was mentioned in this thread.

The problem is with the individual who, upon hearing that you had sundered a +1 weapon, suggested that you had intercourse with pigs. There have been problems with him and loot in the past. Like the end of the last adventure, when he got the spell book with EVERY wizard spell from the core, and that crazy robe, and when we suggested he sit out of the loot for a bit to let the rest of the party catch up he nearly stormed off.

Back to the point. If you had a spell that not only made the enemy take a -4 to attacks and do a d3, but made them not threaten squares, and have every attack draw an AoO, would you use it? Sunder away. Sunder everything, sunder their nose rings and hair ties.

The Exchange

I have often used sunder for NPC's who attack the party. It is a great way to occasionally force upgrades in the party equipment and used judiciously helps use up some resources. You do have to be careful though, nothing upsets a group more than having no treasure and going up against a laughing dragon.


I'm glad your cleric supports you, and seriously, for all you loot hungry meta-gamers posting, I say this: PSJFOKLFNBS:KABNDPIQRBDNQOF{NAOPBNFDROIW#BFDANBOFNQOW!!!!


Radu the Wanderer wrote:

.

I didn't start paying DND to build a business or micromanage my wealth.

That's the funniest thing I have read all day, lol.

Agreed


I'm anti-sunder not so much because of the loot, but because most times it's a waste of a action.

You sunder the sword, the mook takes a five foot step, uses his move action to draw his bow, and shoots you with it. If you had just him he'd be dead. In defense of sunder when it matters it REALLY matters.


It hardly ever shows up. I guess it's the old "don't destroy our money" argument.

That and inertia, I guess. In my games since somewhere in the current campaign, magic items are magic because of magic crystals (which you can take off and add to other weapons), and when you hack apart a weapon, the crystals will remain whole. But the old mentality is still there.

Maybe I'll add an enemy who goes for sunder to show them what happens (beyond the simple "lose your weapon until you get a new masterwork weapon of your preferred type and transfer the crystals)


Oh yeah, I like Sunder, on both sides of the screen.

As a DM, I love how the players instantly go on red alert the instant their gear is in any way threatened.

As a player, I often employ it on a Charge against archers because it rarely provokes an Attack of Opportunity, projectile weapons are pathetically easy to break, and such NPCs are typically boned once their big gun is in pieces. None of this Tumble/5-ft. step away and shooting me business.


I say sunder away! The GM should really be adjusting your treasure based on the encounter, not on the actual items in possession of the enemies. If you are fighting a level X encounter, you should get Y amount treasure at some point- but it doesn't have to be through the loot. It can be by a bounty on your enemy's head that 'mysteriosly' you didn't know about beforehand. It could be from selling the hide of a monstrous enemy. It could be from your payroll because you are a mercenary. Any number of storyline-enhancing reasons are at the GM's disposal to pad your WBL if you happen to sunder something which was intended as loot. There is no reason to waste an ability you spent a feat/ feats on.

Unless the campaign you are playing is a bunch of brigands who kill people and fence their swords as their typical means of making money, the whole "don't sunder that valuable loot" argument sounds like metagaming to me. Unnecessary metagaming at that (see above).


I am the GM, and I will tell my players to sunder away - because I might just sunder them sometimes (when it makes sense for the monster/situation), and there is no finite limit to the amount of "loot" I will hand out to them - you look for more wealth, you probably find it.


I just started playing a half-orcish fighter with the sunder thing going. I sunder in three situations:

1) If we're trying to take an opponent alive. (I think the GM might be giving me an Intimidate bonus when I destroy somebody's sword than demand his surrender)

2) If the party is in no serious danger in a low-level from a mook-level encounter. There's a certain style to it, and my fellow players demand that I add one-liners after sundering.

3) If the "valuable magic item" is being used against the party. Yes, the wizard has his covetous eyes on the evil necromancer's Wand of Ass-Kicking. But if the necromancer is killing us with it ... the wand is going bye-bye.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No. It's a waste of my characters time.

I very much prefer they take the enemy's weapon and beat them with it.


Shadow_of_death wrote:
Jason S wrote:


The exception to the rule is if you're in a Monte Hall campaign and the GM is giving out +4 greatswords at level 7 and you've just sundered it. In that case you probably owe everyone an apology (and pizza) then. :)

In order to sunder a +4 weapon you have to have a +4 weapon, so if you do then sundering may not be a good option for that extremely high wbl game. Much more efficient to TWF, hard to miss.

I found out recently that was removed in the 5th printing of core rule book. It is in printing 1-4. Becasue I have the 4th, but it has been removed since then. you can download the changes here based on what printing of the book you have at this link. http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Ruleboo k


Radu the Wanderer wrote:

I like the sunder combat maneuver. I've got an oracle of battle who runs around with an adamantine falchion and greater sunder, and I love being able to shatter weapons and armor completely in one strike. Enemy has a nasty magic weapon? Break it!

Some of the other players have gotten angry at me for "destroying loot" when I have done this. We ran into some mooks lately who had +1 greatswords. I just flat out broke one and thanks to greater sunder the damage that carried over was enough to kill the dude. I crit'ed on the sunder, so it was somewhere in the realm of 50 damage or so. (We're level 12 and by this point I'm running around with 28 strength in most battles)

Do you use sunder? Do you like it? Are your players discouraged from using it because they don't like the thought of losing out on loot?

At level 12, destroying a +1 magical weapon is piffling. Even had we sold it it's only 250 gp a piece. Is losing out on an insignificant amount of gold and an item no one in the party will use worth me being too afraid of making everyone else mad to use the feats I bought? What is the most fair way to address this?

1) Mending and make whole are your friends when it comes to sundering. They are more than enough to repair your average damaged/destroyed treasures.

2) Yes, I use sundering, both as a player and a GM. Perhaps it's because I played FFT, but breaking your enemy's gear to get an advantage is fair game. The fewer weapons your opponents have the more effective it is. It also works wonders on other things like scrolls, wands, staffs, etc.


FYI, objects are immune to critical damage, so critting a sunder will not do extra damage to an item. If you have Greater Sunder and do enough to destroy the object, critical damage should still apply to damage carried over to the wearer, but the non-critical damage first has to destroy the item.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you use sunder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.