2 part question for you guys. Spoilers cause my players read my stuff and if you're one of them, please don't read the following.
-First is on the fairness of sundering player's gear. I've heard that it's typically a "Jerk-DM" tactic but I don't see why they wouldn't do it in certain instances. This will literally be the first Sunder-er that I'm throwing at my players, so it's not something that's super common. Also, the particular NPC who's going to be doing the sundering has reason to do so, they lost to the PC I plan on targeting already because they couldn't get past their high AC. I think, it's the next logical step for them to try and smash through their armor and lower their defenses.
However I can't help but feel a nagging voice at the back of my mind saying this is an "unfair tactic". What are other DM & Players attitudes on the subject? Am I in the right to target their CMD since it will be substantially lower than their AC?
Secondly, I want to double check my numbers.
The Sunder-er is a Half-Fiend (Human) Fighter. His CMB to Sundering is:
8 BAB + 6 STR + 2 I.Sunder + 2 G. Sunder + 1 W.Training + 1 W.Focus + 1 G.W.F = +21 CMB
Anything I'm missing? Or anything I shouldn't be adding? I was under the impression that you: "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."
And the only thing bonus they get to their CMD is their dodge & Deflection yes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks right to me :)
Also, I've had the same feeling, but you know what? Screw it. Those rules are just as much yours to use, as they are the players' to use.
Roll with it, have fun, feel no guilt.
-Nearyn
|
It's a Jerk DM tactic if it's use to take away gear and not give it back, to permanently hurt the player.
If you can provide replacement armour later (or a quest that can provide equal or better armour) then it's less of a Jerk DM move.
Having them buy new gear doesn't count as they're spending more of their wealth. Unless they get extra cash.
You can also stop at just breaking the item (halving its AC). This might allow the villain to hit the PCs without taking the armour away entirely.
If they're fighting a CR7+ opponent then they really should have access to either mending or make whole which makes broken gear less painful.
|
I'm conflicted about Sundering. There's a couple of points to consider;
1) why is the NPC sundering? Why not disarming? Is sundering more useful than just trying to damage the PC outright? A sunder build is a huge investment, but in my experience it's often more useful to beat up an enemy than to spend a few rounds sundering his stuff, so evolution suggests sunder builds should be rare. The only one with a good reason for a sunder build would be a Spell Sunder barbarian, in which case the sundering of normal stuff is a bit of a free side effect of investing in spell sundering.
2) WBL suggests how much gear a PC should have, roughly, at that level. Not that it's a straight climbing line; you can go up in a zig-zagging manner. You find stuff, stuff gets lost/stolen/destroyed, you find more stuff.
Sundering is "fair" in a situation where the PC's long-term wealth isn't influenced, but his short-term wealth is. In other words, any enemy using sunder (or the one right behind him) should be carrying very above-average loot.
Sundering can still be traumatic to players, and actually I think it's less traumatic if you start early. If attempts to smash your gear happen from level 1 onwards, it's not something that suddenly came out of the blue for no reason other than that the GM felt he should be trying this, too.
So if the first time ever the PCs meet someone with sunder, is someone optimized for sunder, that's a bit odd. It feels very "on purpose".
Now if you start with an NPC a couple of levels lower than the PC, make a sunder attempt and scratch (but not seriously destroy) the PC's weapon, you're preparing the player mentally for the fact that sunder exists and that you're willing to use it. But just because someone tries sunder doesn't mean they'll always succeed.
Then when you finally bring out this dude, it's not "well, the first NPC ever who uses sunder is totally optimized for it", it's "well, many have tried, but you're the first one to succeed".
|
|
How many times have you seen PCs sunder their enemies' gear ?
I NEVER saw it. Because PCs want to keep the loot intact.
Why would NPCs think any differently ?
This is why Sunder can indeed be a jerk-GM move, in addition to the impact on PCs which, by definition, is far stronger than the impact on (dead) NPCs.
There are many ways to deal with high AC. I feel Sundering is NOT the best way to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a tactic that is far more helpful to the NPCs and harmful to the players. Have they ever used sunder against the NPCs? If they haven't, I wouldn't use it against them, or I would stop at giving items the broken condition. Technically the NPC doesn't need to care if he "destroys the loot" or not, but that's exactly why it's an unfair attack and the line of thinking is incredibly meta-gamey.
There's a spell called Mending and a spell called Make Whole that fixes a lot of the destroyed gear problems go away.
There's a spell called Mending and a spell called Make Whole that fixes a lot of the destroyed gear problems go away.
Except for the part where destroyed magic items (ie, the things actually worth a lot of money) have the magic go bye-bye when the item is destroyed, and you can cast mend on it for 10 years straight and the magical properties still aren't coming back.
Sundering is a valid tactic. If nothing else it might scare the players into fighting with a different method, even if you don't do enough damage to outright destroy an item. The martial players may be wary to engage in combat if they fear their weapon is going to be destroyed, and then rely on the casters to kill or neutralize the enemy. I find sundering is a way to change the pace of combat and that players rarely expect. Don't go crazy and sunder everything though. Hopefully players have backup weapons and will switch to them to avoid the destruction of their main weapons.
|
And the only thing bonus they get to their CMD is their dodge & Deflection yes?
Not quite.
Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Most of these other types are less common, but for example if an Inquisitor is using a Judgment to gain a sacred/profane bonus to AC, that bonus also applies to CMD.
Of course Sunder makes sense if AC is very high and damaging Armor via CMB can deal with that.
Plate Armor is an obvious situation (in-game) where at low levels the AC will be huge but CMD should be easier.
I would consider it a jerk move if a GM destroys verisimilitude in the interests of subsuming the entire game to 'PCs collect phat loot and this can never ever be taken away from them'. A PC is not their gear, a PC is not their build, if the PC ends up without a piece of gear for a while, perhaps using sub-par gear they scavenge, so what?, that's all part of the story. How many novels and movies involve the heroes put on thei off-foot and forced to deal with things in suboptimal circumstances? Removing that option from your story lines is dumbing down the game for all your players.
You're the GM, you know the PCs wealth and can adjust sources of wealth to maintain them at or near WBL, or you can keep difference vs. WBL (and more specifically, the actual combat stats e.g. AC) in mind when designing encounters. Heaven forbid, if you end up 'taking away' wealth(items) for metagame reasons, how is that worse than GRANTING wealth(items) for metagame reasons (to meet WBL)? If it's within the story and versimillitude, then all the better.
For the Sunder attack roll, you would also use any Weapon Enhancement bonuses (not all CMBs use weapons, e.g. Grapple/Over-Run/Bullrush USUALLY don't, but Sunder does along with Trip and Disarm), and basically any other attack bonuses like Flanking, attacking from Invisibility, etc.
For the CMD, all AC bonuses except Armor, Shield, Natural Armor, and Enhancement bonuses to those, apply...
Basically everything that applies to Touch AC, except by RAW, Untyped bonuses don't apply (although I believe that's Errata).
(Plenty of other stuff can apply to Touch AC besides Dodge/Deflection, e.g. Luck, Sacred, etc...)
|
Make Whole does indeed repair destroyed magic items.
I would leave a few scrolls of it amongst this Sunderer's loot.
It makes sense that he may want to salvage some fallen enemies' items.
Sunder is not quite the "Hero-Bane" it once was.
FYI, Make Whole needs TWICE the item Caster Level to fix DESTROYED magic items (as opposed to damaged ones).
Actually, the destroyed item itself is fixed easily, but the magical enchantments won't work unless you have twice the Caster Level.
That isn't a reason to avoid using Sunder or destroying items, but expect it to always be an easy magical 'undo' for damaged items may not always apply in every situation/every magical item. Although there is the option to not destroy an item but leave it broken at 1 hp, that means they are still getting half of the item's AC (plus Enhancements, which still work) or still using the weapon just with penalties, so actually destroying an item does have alot of sense in doing (for the Sunderer).
EDIT: It's not covered by the rules, but I would probably allow restoring Magical Enchantments UP TO the Caster Level/2 you can pull off with the Make Whole Caster Level. With multiple independent Enhancements, that's pretty much RAW, but with stacking ones like AC Enhancement Bonus (and 'equivalent' abilities that stack) it's not RAW... And you would need to determine the 'order' or 'priority' in which abilities are fixed, with plain vanilla Enhancement bonus it doesn't matter but with multiple 'bonus equivalent abilities' it does become a judgement call (you could go with order they were added to the item).
you can get a similar effect with the feeling the NPC's are metagaming if you send a rust monsters after them.
The sunder rules exist for a reason. If it seems reasonable for an NPC to try and break the PCs gear then do it. It's not a jerk move.
All things in moderation though. Throwing sunderer after sunderer against the PCs is a jerk move. Stay away from that and you'll be fine.
- Torger
Generally speaking, as others have noted, no reasonable PC is ever going to make sundering enemy loot their specialization.
why not? WBL guidelines do not depend on X items being their sole means of realization.
. An NPC on the other hand, in meta-thinking, has no reason to care as their existence often begins and ends with the encounter.
It is also not sensible tactic, as outside of meta-thinking, as no rational NPC in a material world would sunder gear they could otherwise loot - so make sure your NPC is either bezerker crazy or otherwise utterly oblivious to materialism (or perhaps independently uber-rich).
You already identified this potential issue as 'meta-thinking', i.e. 'meta-gaming',
which is not an issue of what the NPC /thinks/ or is motivated by, but how the GM is meta-gaming how to deploy NPCs.While SOME NPCs may be primarily motivated by potential loot of an encounter,
most will be primarily motivated by surviving the encounter #1, and #2 whatever other reasons they have to be there.
Unless every NPC is the equivalent of a violent mugger, then looting gear is probably not their prime concern.
And even if that is for a given NPC, their assumptions about the world may not include high end magical gear
that isn't as easily fixable with Mend/Make Whole, and would base their actions on the dynamics of Sundering lower end items,
since it's not always obvious whether an item is mundane/merely MW or has basic or advanced enchantments.
The OP's NPC /isn't/ a throw-way NPC, it is a recurring enemy who survived one combat with the PC and is returning again. Obviously for recurring NPCs ideas they DO have to worry about long-term issues, or events outside of one combat tailored to their speciality.
Time to clarify some things as the OP:
I do intend to destroy gear, but it will be replaced. For example, I plan on destroying their mundane Fullplate, in exchange for they'll take their opponents +3 Fullplate when they defeat them(a straight upgrade). I may have to destroy their +3 shield too, but that will also be replaced for some comparable cost boots(likely in the next encounter). And Everyone is well above WBL, so even if it's for an encounter or two, it wouldn't cripple them.
Furthermore, I wouldn't call it specialization. The Half-Fiend using it is a fighter who already had power attack. They've gained 2 levels since they last faced party and thus took 2 new feats(Improved Sunder and Greater Sunder). I wouldn't call two feats over specialization or anything.
Also, I think there is a reason for the half-fiend to do sunder. The Paladin(the targeted PC) in specific took on the NPC single handedly twice, crushed him two times in combat because he couldn't touch his AC because of how armored he was. Rather than just sitting there and whiffing on the Paladin again, a fight he knows he will lose again, I think it makes sense for him to try to whittle his defenses down so he can actually hurt him.
Edit for Ninjas:
And I would use another tactic, but as a Fighter, I see he can either grapple him or sunder. Touch spells & etc aren't really an option. As a character with 3 Attacks a round, Sunder seems the smarter move.
Make Whole does indeed repair destroyed magic items.
If you have double the CL of the item. If a warrior has his +3 sword destroyed, you'd need CL 18 to repair it!
That rule mostly seems to screw over the martials, whose +X gear will quickly accumulate a high CL on the item, though there are plenty of randomly high CL low price items for no apparent reason, too.
What's weird is that things like Headbands of Vast Intelligence have a fixed CL not dependent on the bonus size, it's just CL8 = CL16 to fix if destroyed.
|
|
Time to clarify some things as the OP:
** spoiler omitted **Edit for Ninjas:
** spoiler omitted **
Sounds like you're using it fairly - a realistic tactic from an NPC familiar with the PCs, and with the intent to quickly restore the destroyed items.
I feel like a house-rule on the ability of Make Whole to restore destroyed items might make Sunder more acceptable for GMs and players both...
Here's my take on Sunder, which is pretty much the same as any rule, feat, option, etc. I play by a simple code "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." That being said, if the PCs haven't been using Sunder, I doubt that I would, simply because of the amount of heartbreak and/or hard feelings it can generate. However, if you have a plan in place to make things "right" fairly quickly, then its not nearly as big a deal to me.
In that situation, it becomes much like the classic "you wake up in a jail cell stripped of all your gear" scenario. Sure, you've just taken away all of their hard earned gear, but odds are their gear is lying somewhere fairly nearby and the adventure has been tailored with the recognition that the PCs are starting off without any gear.
Players hate it when their weapons and armor go bye-bye, so unless it's in character for the NPC to be sundering (i.e. has Improved Sunder feat), I probably wouldn't use it.
I found it makes more since for larger "intelligent" critters to do it. Imagine a pissed ogre that has missed twice yelling "Me crack you like WALNUT!"
Of course, he'd provoke an attack of opportunity since he wouldn't have Improved Sunder. I find it's hard to justify giving an NPC Improved Sunder as opposed to, say, Improved Disarm. Only time I gave it to an NPC was a pair of trolls that were the gate crashers of an army. Gave the PCs plenty of warning though and I only left their like two items at the broken condition.
Keep in mind that normal Full Plate has 45 hit points and hardness 10. So the BBEG has to do 55 HP of damage to destroy it in one shot. With 2 attacks, he still has to average 37-38 a shot to destroy it. 18 - 19 for 3 attacks (and they all have to land). A +3 heavy shield has hardness 16 and 50 HP.
Assuming the first hit (or full attack) doesn't outright destroy the armor, the Fighter now has the opportunity to change tactics to avoid letting it get destroyed.
This NPC lost to the PC before? Why didn't he use all of his amazing sunder feats then? I'm betting it's because this version of the NPC is different than the last one. That's the part of this scenario I have a problem with.2 part question for you guys. Spoilers cause my players read my stuff and if you're one of them, please don't read the following.
** spoiler omitted **
Read the OP's most recent post. NPC is a fighter and has leveled up twice since the last fight, and spent his feats on being able to sunder based on his past inability to punch through a PC's armor. That's just realistic leveling of a recurring enemy NPC.
Never blame yourself, as a GM, for an attack method that may seem unfair. (don't hate the GM, hate the game)
But especially if it is something the players can do in return. Every now and then it can be exciting to have an opponent with similar tactics
@tomorrow: it's not even so much that approach is 'harsh', but just an absurd reading of the RAW and RAI of WBL.
if the whole point of WBL is balancing encounters in the current moment (because of how gear measured by wealth affects your combat or other abilities/statistics), who cares if you've gained and lost the entire fortune of the world several times over in stock market ventures that you did years back? what happens if you ride thru a teak forest? if you don't clearcut it, you miss out on WBL for a good chunk of levels?
also note that usage of consumables shouldn't impact ongoing WBL, as stuff you drank ages ago isn't your current wealth.
(likewise for all the food, education, clothing, and other costs you've spent to live)
by the 'harsh' approach, long-lived old creatures should progressively have less usable wealth,
since they've 'spent' much of the WBL on living expenses or whatever over the years or centuries.
GMs following that approach to WBL are not using it's RAW or RAI, and as such are no different than anybody just using some random harsh house-rule. IMHO, it's clear that such GMs are injecting some sort of 'morality' of 'you should spend your income wisely' when that isn't really suggested by the WBL rule.
I find it's hard to justify giving an NPC Improved Sunder as opposed to, say, Improved Disarm.
I think Power Attack is a more common Feat than Combat Expertise, but your experience may vary.
Of course, he'd provoke an attack of opportunity since he wouldn't have Improved Sunder.
As I've already posted (but it seems popular to ignore), there's PLENTY of scenarios which happen ALL THE TIME where an AoO might not be provoked/be able to be capitalized on: flat-footed, natural reach advantage, lunge, invisible, AoOs already used up. You don't need any special Feats to realize that you can use Sunder in those situations without any special danger of AoOs, that's just the normal combat rules.
@tomorrow: it's not even so much that approach is 'harsh', but just an absurd reading of the RAW and RAI of WBL.
if the whole point of WBL is balancing encounters in the current moment (because of how gear measured by wealth affects your combat or other abilities/statistics), who cares if you've gained and lost the entire fortune of the world several times over in stock market ventures that you did years back? what happens if you ride thru a teak forest? if you don't clearcut it, you miss out on WBL for a good chunk of levels?also note that usage of consumables shouldn't impact ongoing WBL, as stuff you drank ages ago isn't your current wealth.
(likewise for all the food, education, clothing, and other costs you've spent to live)
by the 'harsh' approach, long-lived old creatures should progressively have less usable wealth,
since they've 'spent' much of the WBL on living expenses or whatever over the years or centuries.GMs following that approach to WBL are not using it's RAW or RAI, and as such are no different than anybody just using some random harsh house-rule. IMHO, it's clear that such GMs are injecting some sort of 'morality' of 'you should spend your income wisely' when that isn't really suggested by the WBL rule.
I find it's hard to justify giving an NPC Improved Sunder as opposed to, say, Improved Disarm.I think Power Attack is a more common Feat than Combat Expertise, but your experience may vary.
Of course, he'd provoke an attack of opportunity since he wouldn't have Improved Sunder.As I've already posted (but it seems popular to ignore), there's PLENTY of scenarios which happen ALL THE TIME where an AoO might not be provoked/be able to be capitalized on: flat-footed, natural reach advantage, lunge, invisible, AoOs already used up. You don't need any special Feats to realize that you can use Sunder in those situations without any special danger of AoOs, that's just the normal combat rules.
Well admittedly I was still talking about the dumb, brutish ogre, which I'd be surprised if he could cast invisible.
Ogre mage on the other hand... ;)
Still, I'd hesitate to be THAT nasty. It kinda screams Grudge Monster and I'd rather not make a monster specifically to crack someone's armor/weapon. Although natural reach would make sense, yeah. My point with Improved Sunder is that it's easier to justify someone having, say, Improved Disarm (fencer, master swordsman), than Improved Sunder. It's a bit more specific of a feat in my opinion *shrug*.
And as for WBL, I admittedly tend to give out more than it says. What can I say, I'm a giver :)
Yeah, I think I was carrying over a bit from another thread where the question was the value of CMBs in general, and nobody wanted to even acknowledge the many situations where you can avoid an AoO even without Improved Maneuver Feats. (i mean, people had other existential issues, but they kept on raising the AoO aspect like those always apply without the Feat) EDIT: The Invisibility attack bonus should apply when the target is in Total Darkness and the target doesn't have Darkvision AFAIK, likewise when Blinded.
Re: 'justifying' Imp Sunder, I don't think it really needs much, given the fluff difference between "Smash Mr. Plate!" (normal attack dealing X hp damage) and "Smash Mr. Plate!" (sunder dealing X hp damage to armor) is just marginal, never mind Sunder vs. Attacks vs. Unattended Objects. If somebody fights alot of opponents with big Armor bonuses (i.e. reasonable scenario where bypassing Armor with CMB to then negate Armor Bonus makes sense) is plausible enough for me (i.e. not random monkeys, but NPCs accustomed to armed/armored opponents).
I don't really see Sunder as a COMMON strategy in general, and the cases where it makes more sense (Heavy Armor) also have the benefit of more HPs for the Armor, and even there normal attacks are still more common. If a GM is (over)using it based on meta-gaming and viewing the game as a video-game set against the PCs, sure, that sucks, but a GM with such an attitude is a problem whether or not they ever use Sunder.
Never blame yourself, as a GM, for an attack method that may seem unfair. (don't hate the GM, hate the game)
But especially if it is something the players can do in return. Every now and then it can be exciting to have an opponent with similar tactics
I agree with the "every now and then." Things like sundering, ability damage, negative levels, etc. aren't that bad if they happen occasionally and if there is a way for the players to reasonably be able to handle the effects (or if new gear is going to be coming in the near next couple sessions future if we're talking about sundering). It's just when every enemy starts making it their life mission to debilitate instead of just damage that it starts to get old. Of course you can argue that the players can do it (whatever tactic we're talking about) too, but realistically as the DM you get all the short lived characters to play in the world. It really isn't the same for you as it is for the player who only has their one character and actually has to deal with the aftermath.
Well as long as it only comes up now and then I think its fine.
It's like Rust Monsters, they suck for players but they exist so you'll probably meet one sooner or later.
One thing to remember though, you don't have to fight everything....
Yeah if abilities were spices, Sunder would be Rosemary. Just want a sprig here and there, but too much over powers the meal.
The point about +3 and up weapons neglects to take into account two things.
First, that to do anything other than waste the Sunder attempt, the Sunderer needs to also be wielding a +3 weapon. Given the mediocrity that is NPC gear budgets, this doesn't happen terribly often.
Second, assuming the maneuver succeeds (which is no sure bet), they then have to do enough damage. A +3 sword has hardness 16, 35-40 hit points. A +3 adamantine sword has hardness 26 and at least a few more hit points.
Toss in the impervious armor/weapon quality and the armor/shield/weapon becomes nigh indestructible, especially in combination with mithril or certain starmetals.
A +5 adamantine indestructible breastplate has hardness 50, 140 hit points. Good luck doing enough damage via Sunder against that.
First, that to do anything other than waste the Sunder attempt, the Sunderer needs to also be wielding a +3 weapon. Given the mediocrity that is NPC gear budgets, this doesn't happen terribly often.
They removed that rule as far as I can tell. Just increased HP & Hardness.
|
|
One actual instance I can remember involved a fight with some undead and a young dragon, who apparently had a big lump of gold lodged deep in its stomach. That, the dragon's hide, some dragonbile, and some stuff from the skeletons, was supposed to be our treasure. When the dragon died, it careened over a cliff-side. We could see it was dead and even our Ranger didn't want to repel down to carve up its hide and then climb back up with it. So we left it, and finished rescuing some druid's cousin or something. The reward for that guy's return was pretty weak (it was more of a social/plot developing reward) and a few sessions later I think the guy playing the wizard brought up that we had been in some nasty scraps but didn't seem to be getting any real rewards to upgrade ourselves. The DM mentioned the dragon and even pointed it out in his notes from that session that the treasure had been there. He said he didn't feel obliged to hand wave the party a different treasure when the last one was lost due to laziness. It didn't end up mattering as two of the players ended up leaving the area not too long after that, so the campaign basically dissolved.
It's easy enough to penalize laziness without totally denying treasure - just make the replacement treasure less cool. For example, now you can't make dragonhide armour for the druid because it's not available unless you kill the dragon yourself.