|
Anything that makes the game less fun for the players is bad form.Having a monster or NPC succeed in attacking you isn't fun. As such, I suggest to the developers that all future products remove the ability for any non-PCs to attack. Furthermore, I hope they issue a recall of all prior products and subsequently remove the attacks from them as well. This is the only way to avoid the subsequent loss of fun that results from a successful enemy attack.
Your definition of fun might be a bit restrictive. What are players, who after all thoughtlessly put the well-being of their creations (aka PCs) in the hands of the GM, except pure masochists ? ;-)
|
|
Careful Eldon, you might not like what people have to say about your story.
Anyways, communication is always important. It can make the difference between feeling excited or just depressed or NERDRAGEQUIT! Hard to guess what people can do sometimes, but communication can give you a better idea.
Lol!
After gaming for over 35 years, I don't care what they might say about the story. I have always ended a session with the request for feedback, and never failed to consider what any player at my table had to say...though I rarely get anything but positive comments that tend to be very non-specific.
I'm always open to constructive criticism... but when I take it and run with it...and the complaining players just quit...that's on them.
Make note...the one character I'd damaged so badly...his player was the one who was still most enthusiastic to play. A couple of others were stunned by the quitters...but it effectively destroyed that campaign.
|
|
The problem with your sunder->epic quest idea is that it contains a fair amount of GM fiat.
Letting the party find an amazing weapon is easy enough, though it requires some fairly powerful obstacle or it seems very arbitrary.
Your next step is to sunder it. Are you going to use an overly powerful enemy to do it to assure success? Will you simply fudge the roll? If you don't then will you keep sending sunder happy foes until one succeeds?
Either case might look a bit odd from the groups perspective.
You can make the same adventure by simply letting them find a broken weapon and hear legends about it's origins and a way to repair it. No sundering needed and thus no fudged combat rolls required.
Yeah, I know...and agree. Frankly,I was hoping people would see the parallels with Aragorn's story...or others...and just realize that it's not always just about screwing over the party...and without real adversity, heroes aren't much of heroes after all.
the problem with most fortifications against common mid level effects, is the price tag is prohibitively expensive but for the richest of emperors, and only on a handful of key structures.
to fortify a single castle against teleportation, scrying and the like, in merely the desired areas you wish to protect. you are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gold pieces if going by otherwise normal spell effects as a baseline. and will have to tap into 3.5 material and even 3.5 material.
and there is no price for lead. determining a price for lead is entirely fiat based, plus lead tends to be highly toxic. it's not going to be a safe fortification if you use a highly toxic substance.
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.
Before I say anything I should say I haven't read through all the pages of replies but here are my thoughts and I liked this quote from BR because it pertained to my thoughts lol
I have a character named Keara the Gold in the campaign we're playing right now, she's a half gold dragon Unarmed fighter/monk, who's pretty optimized around one goal- Punching you REALLY freaking hard, but because she uses no weapon and almost no armor, she evens the odds by being an outright monster in destroying objects, especially the armor and weapons of humanoids, so good that she can shatter a +3 longsword in one punch without really rolling much (innate unarmed damage and power attack for the win lol) and most armor similarly. I bring this up because for this character it's a very meaningful thing, she doesn't need a weapon to hide behind, and she's gonna take away you way to hide. After this she usually just proceeds to deal nonlethal and subdue them if the other party members don't hack them to bits
Now thats a situation that I really like Sunder, because it creates awesome roleplay moments (intimidate roll accompanied by folding a sword like it's tinfoil), and an entirely new way to go about combat and non magically nerf enemies, I PERSONALLY, never really care much about loot because it's about story to me, and like I said, I punch things so unless my fight REALLY wants that sword, we can just sell it for metal.
Thats characters using it though, as for a DM using it, I honestly wouldn't mind it all that much in most situations because it might make perfect sense. your blocking an ogre's club with that shield a lot and he doesn't like it?, he might go for making you regret always stopping his attacks. On the other hand I don't think it's right to PICK ON a player that you know only has one of something or no cash, and if you do break something really nice, at least let them be able to get it reforged through a short journey or price so to not permanently gimp them till the next loot drop.
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?
In the past month? Three times. Or at least attempted sunders, it's not always very easy.
In our evil campaign that I play in,
1) My PC broke a barbarian chieftain's spear to try to intimidate the barbarians into siding with us.
2) We also attempted to sunder a paladin's holy sword to remove a force of good from the world but failed.
In my Carrion Crown campaign that I run,
3) They wanted to sunder a razor being wielded by a mad lunatic, however this couldn't actually be done since the player wanted to do it with magic missile (which can't be used to sunder).
The spell Mad Monkeys summons a Monkey Swarm that steals/disarms weapons and then does swarm damage to the stolen/disarmed weapons each round. Good Times.
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.
One of my players did it recently, and players often think from a metagame point of view of gaining loot. NPC's are never written with statblock that say "acquire gear". There are some monsters that have "destroy loot" built into their capabilities such as babua's, and they have a mostly humanoid shape, and would be better off not being created with the ability to destroy a weapon.
And nobody said it can never be a jerk move. We mostly agree that if overdone, or if done in some groups it is a bad idea.
For the casters who sneer at a fighters dependence on gear and think Sundering is OK...build a bad guy archer/sunderer and sunder the headbands, rods, etc at range...then you would really hear some whining
For the casters who sneer at a fighters dependence on gear and think Sundering is OK...build a bad guy archer/sunderer and sunder the headbands, rods, etc at range...then you would really hear some whining
The difference between a sundered headband and a sundered weapon is pretty big. The guy with a headband can still cast spells. A martial type with his weapons sunders may have fun out of ways to kill things and contribute!
Also, sunder is used in place of a melee attack. So you went out of your way to make/use an archetype who has no way of telling that you have magical headbands on its own, then decided to try to sunder instead of just killing them. Not a good number of situations where that makes sense I'd imagine.
We have a saying in France that says "To give is to give. To take back is to steal."
Nobody likes a thief, whether GM or not.
We have a saying in America that says, "Rules are Rules".
We have another one that says, "Turnabout is fair play".
And yet another which goes, "Accusations point at the accuser, not the accused".
Then there is the "Never put all your eggs in one basket" aphorism.
Do not forget the, "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it" one. That one is about carrying spares so that if something does go wrong you are not caught unprepared.
Then there is the boy scout motto, "Be Prepared".
Shall I continue? We Americans love our aphorisms.
Besides, I thought that players "earned" their rewards, not had them "given" to them. And a game where nothing bad ever happens is just plain boring.
Have you people never played Nightmare Keep? If you get bent out of shape about a single broken weapon then you would not last two minutes in that dungeon. I have seen parties remove everything they had left and redistribute gear because some people had weapons and no armor and others had armor and no weapons. And Nightmare keep was so effective at destroying gear so rapidly that I have seen a party have to repeat this process three times!
Carrying spare weapons is a false argument. Because if the GM is not destroying them then you may as well still use your main weapon at the -2 rather than pull out a weaker weapon which is likely at least -1 or more compared to your main weapon anyway and which will likely also be sundered down to an additional -2. IF the GM IS destroying weapons then cut your losses and go unarmed or let the GM destroy your backup as well. Weapons and armor are very pricey and difficult to impossible to repair. Each destroyed piece will send you deeply below WBL. Yes you will find more stuff but that stuff is divided evenly between the party. You will always be poorly equipped compared to the rest of your team after the sunder happy GM gets done with your now very poor fighter.
Let me amend that,
Carrying spare weapons is a false argument with regard to sundering.
I often carry a spare weapon. Why? Because sometimes you have to attack something that may have a rather unfortunate effect on the weapon attacking it... like oozes, slimes, and the like. So it would be foolish to use you main weapon in such an attack. This weapon is typically a very well made non-magical one so that is doesn't impact my WBL and can be repaired simply by the party wizard; like a masterwork sword.
I've sundered tons of PCs equipment. I see nothing wrong with it. Lots of monsters destroy equipment. Oozes, rust monsters and the like.
Now magic items, that's get more difficult as magic items have more hardness and hit points making sundering difficult. Try sundering a +5 Adamantine Two Handed sword with 30 Hardness and 77 HP.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've sundered tons of PCs equipment. I see nothing wrong with it. Lots of monsters destroy equipment. Oozes, rust monsters and the like.
Now magic items, that's get more difficult as magic items have more hardness and hit points making sundering difficult. Try sundering a +5 Adamantine Two Handed sword with 30 Hardness and 77 HP.
You can also spend a few extra 1000 to get a wizard to cast the hardening spell to increase the hardness by 2x the caster level.
Yes you will find more stuff but that stuff is divided evenly between the party.
There's the problem, right there. Your group didn't take the time to write an adventuring contract regarding the division of wealth that includes reimbursement for reasonable expenses, replacements and resurrections.
Unless your group of PCs are loyal friends who trust one another and would make these decisions out of mutual respect, then a contract is essential to divide the loot fairly.
A mercenary band who are disorganized about how received rewards are divided is of course going to be sub-optimal when it comes to resource management.
Well no voska66 rust monsters were nerfed so they do about the same as the nerfed version of sunder they just give your gear a negative, they no longer destroy it.
Yes you will find more stuff but that stuff is divided evenly between the party.There's the problem, right there. Your group didn't take the time to write an adventuring contract regarding the division of wealth that includes reimbursement for reasonable expenses, replacements and resurrections.
Unless your group of PCs are loyal friends who trust one another and would make these decisions out of mutual respect, then a contract is essential to divide the loot fairly.
A mercenary band who are disorganized about how received rewards are divided is of course going to be sub-optimal when it comes to resource management.
All good groups divide treasure equally. It would be absurd not to. Reimbursement for expenses? That is folly, and a quick way for min/maxers to have an excuse to load up on expendables at the parties expense.
|
|
Well no voska66 rust monsters were nerfed so they do about the same as the nerfed version of sunder they just give your gear a negative, they no longer destroy it.
Not sure where your getting your info on the rust monster...a quote from the monster entry for Rust Monster.
A rust monster's antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item.
|
|
All good groups divide treasure equally. It would be absurd not to. Reimbursement for expenses? That is folly, and a quick way for min/maxers to have an excuse to load up on expendables at the parties expense.
Seems to me the groups you play with are not showing group loyalty or mutual respect or trust....
Groups I play with divide the loot so there is a party treasure (party of 6 we divide by 7) to handle things like raises and other such. Just becuase the groups you play with dont follow this kinda thing doesnt make it folly if others do.
This is only my opinion of course.
Not dividing treasure equally does not make you a bad group. Most groups I playee in kept it close but there are times we just give am item to whoever needs it without charging them for it.
Even you don't allow unlimited access to group funds for reimbursement Jacob, you set it at a limit of one equal share which sounds good and I wish more groups did it your way.
All good groups divide treasure equally. It would be absurd not to. Reimbursement for expenses? That is folly, and a quick way for min/maxers to have an excuse to load up on expendables at the parties expense.
Well, although I haven't personally looked over their finances, I'm pretty certain that Blackwater doesn't just take their payments divide it by their number of mercenaries and split the money evenly amongst them. Instead they use some of the money to pay the mercenaries and spent the rest on upgrading and maintaining equipment, providing medical support, etc.
If someone is assigned to be the heavy gunner of the squad and wield a machine gun, then they're not expected to pay for the more expensive ammunition out of their own pocket. Also if the machine gun is lost or destroyed during a machine, through no fault or negligence of the operator, then they wouldn't be expected to pay for a replacement.
As for "folly" and "all good groups", etc. I'll remind you that by your own description, your party's current method results in a single combat maneuver destroying a character's playability for the rest of the campaign. This is clearly not optimal.
If Min/Maxers are a concern, then just get the forum to look over your contract. We've got some of the best min/maxers in the world around here who can proof-read your contract for exploits.
That sounds like abuse by favoritism to me wraithstrike. Three of us love Pete so he gets all his loot without paying for it out of his share of loot but Sarah is just too quiet she gets nothing and has to account for her share fully.
Since when is Blackwater a GOOD group? I mean, american patriotism is one thing, but that seems to be taking it a bit too far...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like abuse by favoritism to me wraithstrike. Three of us love Pete so he gets all his loot without paying for it out of his share of loot but Sarah is just too quiet she gets nothing and has to account for her share fully.
No, it's more like "hmm, we found this magic sword and 1000 gp, should we sell the sword and split the half value that comes from it, or should Sarah the fighter get the sword and Pete the wizard get the gold, even though it amounts to less? well, I guess it evens out in the long term..."
At least that's how our groups have done it mostly.
mkenner, Blackwater owns the gear their teams use and loan it out per mission. In Pathfinder the characters aren't usually employees with equipment on loan from their employer. This is like comparing apples and oranges.
Our group divides fairly. If Sarah and Pete find a +1 sword(worth 2000 gold) and 1000 gold then each share is 1500 gold. Since Sarah needs the sword she can keep it and owe Pete the 500 gold he is due if she doesn't have enough to cover it just yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even you don't allow unlimited access to group funds for reimbursement Jacob, you set it at a limit of one equal share which sounds good and I wish more groups did it your way.
The group I'm playing with is VERY lenient when it comes to treasure. Magic items are given to who wants/can use, left over stuff is sold and the cash is divided equally plus a party share.
We dont stick to closely to WBL since we've been playing mostly grinder APs and strict WBL would leave the PCs lacking pretty quick.
Personally, I have never had a player complain about equipment loss in more than three decades of running games. And I have broken/burned up/melted/smashed/disintegrated/disjuncted/disenchanted/rusted away/torn/stapled/mangled/ground down/corrupted/mythal rippled or otherwise damaged and/or destroyed nearly every non-artifactual (and some of those too) magic item or piece of equipment ever printed at some point or another.
|
|
Personally, I have never had a player complain about equipment loss in more than three decades of running games. And I have broken/burned up/melted/smashed/disintegrated/disjuncted/disenchanted/rusted away/torn/stapled/mangled/ground down/corrupted/mythal rippled or otherwise damaged and/or destroyed nearly every non-artifactual (and some of those too) magic item or piece of equipment ever printed at some point or another.
Stapled?
...cool!
I don't see the problem with it. Taking it "out" would be like saying the PC's can't be hit by a critical, too. That's just my opinion though. If players or DM's get to complacent, then the joy and thrill of the game become stale. Keep your players guessing as to what will happen next.
Does it suck? Sure it does! Although, again, I like a sense of realism in my games. No, I'm not crazy (well, maybe a bit) gamer that thinks the game is real. However, if the hero always wins, or never has anything significant happen to them, what is the point of playing? Guess that's why I like Game of Thrones so much. I was so shocked and yet loved what happened to Ned Stark (and others).
Anyways, that's my wall of text, I mean 2 cents. :) Hope your gaming group is going well and always remember, have fun!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your question, TOZ, Nightmare Keep was a 2Ed module for four to six 22nd+ level characters. It had a great plot and it was the most fiendish deathtrap that I have ever run. I ran it three times and not one party got past the 70% completed mark. It ate them all for breakfast. The real kicker is that I hate these types of modules. I used it for one reason only and that was to answer the challenge of several different players that, "No published adventure could ever stop my (insert name, class and level of outrageously equipped monty haul character from another GM's game here)".
It had collapsing ceiling traps inside crawlways that buried PC's in the narrow crawlways and released gray oozes atop the piles of rubble pinning the PC's down. Of course the oozes would just ooze through the collapsed rubble and attack the pinned PC's. Oh sorry, I forgot to mention that there were custom 9th level darkness and silence spells in the crawlways placed by a 26th level caster didn't I? The poor players could not see what was eating them, could not move and could not call for help.
It had vast caverns composed of green glass, littered with glass stalactites and stalagmites in tight formations and broken shards of grain-sized to pinky-sized glass shards piled into drifts all through those caverns. Leather, cloth and paper items did not stand a chance once the various traps and air elementals in those areas were activated or let loose. For that matter just moving through these areas frequently destroyed cloaks, boots, & gloves.
It had puzzles that would make a player pull their hair out. The worst of which was a series of keys necessary to progress from one area to another the last of which was a golden key. The looks on the players faces when I described the 80' long, 20' wide, 4' deep stone trench filled with tens of thousands of glowing golden keys was absolutely priceless. Only one party that I ran through it made it that far, and right there is where they called it quits and said, "Please, Dave, can we just pretend we never played this?".
In short, it was a players nightmare (hence the name) that made the Tomb of Horrors look like a pre-school pizza party. I hated Tomb of Horrors. I hated Nightmare Keep. But not as much as the author and I hated monty haul style 20th+ level characters. He wrote that module to grind PC's down and kill them. Excruciatingly slowly so that they had time to savor the loss of each piece of their precious gear before they finally met their end at the hands of one of the keeps denizens. That is why I only ran it when a player would get too big for their britches and say, "No published adventure can stop me.", usually in response to me suggesting we try a published module for a change. They were all wrong, and most of them were dead wrong.
Personally, I have never had a player complain about equipment loss in more than three decades of running games. And I have broken/burned up/melted/smashed/disintegrated/disjuncted/disenchanted/rusted away/torn/stapled/mangled/ground down/corrupted/mythal rippled or otherwise damaged and/or destroyed nearly every non-artifactual (and some of those too) magic item or piece of equipment ever printed at some point or another.Stapled?
...cool!
The "Stapling Shot" ability from the 2nd edition Elven Archer Kit. It was especially useful for simultaneously destroying gear and immobilizing a target. You could staple cloaks to horses or peoples feet/boots to the ground. I once even saw a PC staple a Cleric of Banes hand to the Zentarim footsoldier that he was buffing with a held action and a well placed shot.
I ran a game once that had all Sylvan Elven characters. One summer an evil Drow archer stalked their forest slaughtering their best warriors and priests with his vile poisoned arrows. The PC's fought him several times before finally defeating him. During those confrontations I stapled boots to the ground, cloaks to trees, hands to bows (and then closed to melee), and even stapled two PC's hands together as one passed another a healing potion. My players still talk in hushed tones of "The Summer of Black Arrows".Good times. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like abuse by favoritism to me wraithstrike. Three of us love Pete so he gets all his loot without paying for it out of his share of loot but Sarah is just too quiet she gets nothing and has to account for her share fully.
It is abuse if the decision is personal(OOC), but if Bobby the barbarian can help the party more by having item X then there is no harm in giving him item X.
I also said nothing about anyone getting nothing. In the event that it were to happen the player that got nothing would be compensated. It is not like I am stating that Bobby always gets free stuff. I am saying that having unequal loot because you think someone have item X does not make for a bad group.
That sounds like abuse by favoritism to me wraithstrike. Three of us love Pete so he gets all his loot without paying for it out of his share of loot but Sarah is just too quiet she gets nothing and has to account for her share fully.
It is abuse if the decision is personal(OOC), but if Bobby the barbarian can help the party more by having item X then there is no harm in giving him item X.
I also said nothing about anyone getting nothing. In the event that it were to happen the player that got nothing would be compensated. It is not like I am stating that Bobby always gets free stuff. I am saying that having unequal loot because you think someone have item X does not make for a bad group.
with Weekly William
we distribute loot among our 15 PC party in the following way
1st. PCs whom showed up that session get first pick of the items, appropriate to their role. any specific cases have to be mentioned and noted in character creation, such as the rogue or wizard whom is trying to be an arcane trickster, the fighter whom focuses on ranged combat, or somebody with a very specific weapon choice.
2nd. Consistent PCs whom need the loot, but couldn't make it due to an excusable circumstance (such as illness or work) get secondary pick of needed loot on treasure distribution day with a priority system based on role and how consistent they are. exceptions are made for Role Specific Gear or Highly Class Specific items. characters that tend to die or get replaced frequently have lower priority because they come decked out with the WBL chart.
3rd. PCs whom are fairly consistent, don't have the item but need it for their previously explained role. in other words, the PCs whom didn't get priority pick but still come a decent amount of time but haven't swapped, or the near guaranteed characters that are replaced often. martial gear is fought over, such as composite bows, but on some occasions, the intelligence headband might have skills that benefit the rogue, ranger, or bard, more than they benefit the wizard, or maybe, the wizard and the rogue trade headbands to give themselves the more desirable ones.
4th. inconsistent PCs whom actually benefit from the gear. the fighter whom shows up monthly, is the last of the PCs to get a strength belt, most likely a hand me down
5th-8th. cohorts in system 1-4.
9th. PCs whom want the benefit just because, usually due to an unplanned or unannounced change in their build. for example, the 5th level rogue whom tells us he is going for the arcane trickster but hasn't told us until that moment, that we never realized was a rogue 3/wizard 2 because it had been assumed he had been using wands.
10th; cohorts whom go through similar sudden changes, expect lots of them to have hand me downs
11th; party funds
12th; sell for gold
means sunder can be crippling for a long time when we have 15 PCs and 15 Cohorts, 25 of which, use weapons and armor, either as a primary or secondary role and only 5 of which are dedicated casters/skill monkeys/utility bags.
|
|
Personally, I have never had a player complain about equipment loss in more than three decades of running games. And I have broken/burned up/melted/smashed/disintegrated/disjuncted/disenchanted/rusted away/torn/stapled/mangled/ground down/corrupted/mythal rippled or otherwise damaged and/or destroyed nearly every non-artifactual (and some of those too) magic item or piece of equipment ever printed at some point or another.Stapled?
...cool!
The "Stapling Shot" ability from the 2nd edition Elven Archer Kit. It was especially useful for simultaneously destroying gear and immobilizing a target. You could staple cloaks to horses or peoples feet/boots to the ground. I once even saw a PC staple a Cleric of Banes hand to the Zentarim footsoldier that he was buffing with a held action and a well placed shot.
I ran a game once that had all Sylvan Elven characters. One summer an evil Drow archer stalked their forest slaughtering their best warriors and priests with his vile poisoned arrows. The PC's fought him several times before finally defeating him. During those confrontations I stapled boots to the ground, cloaks to trees, hands to bows (and then closed to melee), and even stapled two PC's hands together as one passed another a healing potion. My players still talk in hushed tones of "The Summer of Black Arrows".Good times. :)
Niiice. :)
|
|
That sounds like abuse by favoritism to me wraithstrike. Three of us love Pete so he gets all his loot without paying for it out of his share of loot but Sarah is just too quiet she gets nothing and has to account for her share fully.
It is abuse if the decision is personal(OOC), but if Bobby the barbarian can help the party more by having item X then there is no harm in giving him item X.
I also said nothing about anyone getting nothing. In the event that it were to happen the player that got nothing would be compensated. It is not like I am stating that Bobby always gets free stuff. I am saying that having unequal loot because you think someone have item X does not make for a bad group.
Been there, done that...got the t-shirt (my share of the loot).
Can work great.
Sunder is absolutely fine. If the NPC in question, by her own reasoning, would sunder, then sunder it shall be. Most of the time, disarm is more appropriate, but sometimes it isn't. If a canny NPC watches his friends hammer futilely on a PC's fortified full plate, he'll probably try to carve a piece of it off or crush it with a mace.
Yes, it stinks to end up lacking your favorite weapon or armor or your component pouch. Keep a backup. Consider some of those "useless" enchantments that make magic arms more difficult to damage.
To those complaining about how such tactics would damage a caharacter's viability due to not meeting wealth by level: C'mon, have a little faith that the GM will take such things into account when designing.
I have used sunder as a player but had not yet had the privilege of doing so as an NPC. In my last campaign I had a rather infamously destructive little barbarian designed known as Khulkuhr the Sunderer. The intent was for the NPC's reputation for sundering heads and helmets alike to precede him and maybe strike a little fear into the players instead of just the PCs--but I expected the players to plan accordingly. Sadly, Khulkuhr never made it into that game before it had to be put on hiatus, but I still have a soft spot carved into my heart for the blaggard.
Well no voska66 rust monsters were nerfed so they do about the same as the nerfed version of sunder they just give your gear a negative, they no longer destroy it.
Uh, no. They still destroy equipment very handily. One hit (and one failed save for attended or magic items) and it's broken regardless of hit points. One more and it's destroyed, whether it's a lock pick or a +5 vorpal greatsword.
Where'd you get this information?
I expect my GM to play my enemies intelligently. If I am playing a Zen Archer, an intelligent enemy would try to get close to me and sunder my bow.
The most intelligent thing to do is slit your throat(CdG) you while your sleep really. Why give you a chance? Besides, they can steal your stuff after that no fight at all!