In orer to not Derail another thread Im here to ask. Why do people not like sundering in PFS? It seems like a perfectly viable tactic to help with fights. How does this hurt the spirit of the game? IS someone sunders a Spell pouch/ A weapon and so forth why is that considered a bad tactic?
|
Eh, I'm kind of glad sundering doesn't get punished by loss of gold. Nobody would ever do it if it did, y'know? It sucks to have such a cool concept as being able to snap your opponent's weapon, only to realize your party will want to strangle you. That's my take on the first issue.
The other two points, however, I am inclined to agree with. Most recalculations are simple but uh... gets a little annoying if, for example, the victim of sunder was a fighter.
|
It can be very annoying, as well, if the target ios a caster-type, and you then nned to go through their spell list to see which spells, if any, don't have M in them, or DF for a cleric.
Also, along with that, sometimes you lose something needed for success later in the scenario or module. "If you have such-and-so weapon, you get X bonus."
But, opverall, GMs dislike Sunder because the thing causes, potentially, a lot of extra work, in the middle of running a game, and is not something likely to be prepared, unless you have a home game environment, and much experience that "Kevin" tends to run Sunder experts.
That, and the damage leak-through always feels cheap to me.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
sometimes you lose something needed for success later in the scenario or module. "If you have such-and-so weapon, you get X bonus."
Sundered important stuff (seen it happen once) is always fixable with Make Whole or Mending spell. Really useful with Wizards who like to Fireball rooms (I've seen this three times) containing papers needed to advance the plot or succeed at a mission.
|
One thing about Sundermonkeys.
If you go Sunder feat chain...
Improved Sunder > Greater Sunder
I have a fighter with an adamantine greateaxe who just power attacks into Sunder, takes the -3, while gaining a +4 to hit cause of the feats, and simply relies on the massive extra damage he does through the attack to deal damage to the attacker.
Or he just forgoes power attack, takes a +4 to hit his opponent...cause...hes sundering.
Average damage of 30-34, meaning a good deal is almost always going through.
Now he specifically searches for items to sunder just to gain the +4.
Sunder is incredibly obnoxious because it essentially turns boss fights into a beat on the boss till he stops twitching fight for free.
|
It can be very annoying, as well, if the target ios a caster-type, and you then nned to go through their spell list to see which spells, if any, don't have M in them, or DF for a cleric.
This causes exactly zero problems for me. When I GM and do my prep work, I put the stat blocks of all enemies in a word document. Included with each baddie is the description/effect of feats or powers or conditions that I don't know off the top of my head, and if they are spell casters, the complete description of each spell. I just go to the SRD and copy each spell that the bad guy can use. So, if someone were to sunder an enemy caster's spell pouch, I don't have to look anything up in a book or whatever - I have all that info right at the ready.
Yes, it does require more work on the front end, but as a GM, I consider it my job to be that prepared. Frankly, if it's PFS-legal, I don't want to punish a player for choosing it, even if it does give me heartburn in its execution.
Mark
|
|
As a GM, I have no problem with sundering. However, many do. I think there has been a concerted effort not to have sundering enemies in the scenarios because players will complain if you destroy their favorite [enter item here]. And there seems to largely be an understanding that as long as players don't take advantage of that situation by doing a lot of sundering themselves, GM's and the campaign as a whole will avoid using it. However, if players increasing use sunder, and it is recognized to be a valid tactic, there is no reason to expect GM's and authors not to use it as well. IMO, we are better off staying away from it to prevent hurt feelings.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And there seems to largely be an understanding that as long as players don't take advantage of that situation by doing a lot of sundering themselves, GM's and the campaign as a whole will avoid using it. However, if players increasing use sunder, and it is recognized to be a valid tactic, there is no reason to expect GM's and authors not to use it as well. IMO, we are better off staying away from it to prevent hurt feelings.
How does PCs using sunder "take advantage" of NPCs not using sunder? Aren't the two completely independent of each other?
|
|
As a GM, I have no problem with sundering. However, many do. I think there has been a concerted effort not to have sundering enemies in the scenarios because players will complain if you destroy their favorite [enter item here]. And there seems to largely be an understanding that as long as players don't take advantage of that situation by doing a lot of sundering themselves, GM's and the campaign as a whole will avoid using it. However, if players increasing use sunder, and it is recognized to be a valid tactic, there is no reason to expect GM's and authors not to use it as well. IMO, we are better off staying away from it to prevent hurt feelings.
I agree, in general, with this. Now, if a stat block doesn't list sunder as a tactic, I am unlikely to use that maneuver. If the stat block indicates the monster/bad guy has Improved Sunder, then I might consider it, whether or not it is in tactics section of the stat block.
I don't think monsters generally use this maneuver, and so I don't use it on the PCs. But might a key bad guy use it? Sure, but I generally won't if it's not included in the tactics section.
Mark
|
Due to how chronicle sheets work, sundering becomes less of a problem since you can destroy the equipment of foes and get paid by commission later.
For PCs fearing that their own stuff will no longer be safe, sundering does have the option of leaving sundered objects at 1 hp and broken. As a GM, I'd be okay sending a loud, obnoxious barbarian at the PCs, sundering things but choosing not to destroy them because he'll be bragging about how he'll take those things as trophies.
Then, after walloping that guy, they have to Mend or Make Whole their damaged goods, and realize that they can do the same thing, damaging enemy equipment and repairing it later. They can even use Craft skills to make repairs.
It would make it a riskier propositions to sink all of one's loose change into further enhancing a single object (unless they ask for one that increases its hardness), but it is a thing that carries risks both ways:
If used by PCs, it'll carry the cost of having to fix all the broken salvage that will happen.
If used against PCs, it'll be a frustrating pain to have to stop and fix their weapons if it happens consistently, unless they're proud of being prepared with backup weapons.
In the end, this is the reason why I like chronicle sheets being put on APs: Letting People Break Stuff.
P.S. : I laughed at the story of, "I sunder the diadem on your forehead with my earth breaker, but since I don't have Greater Sunder, you're completely unharmed."
|
As a GM, I have no problem with sundering. However, many do. I think there has been a concerted effort not to have sundering enemies in the scenarios because players will complain if you destroy their favorite [enter item here]. And there seems to largely be an understanding that as long as players don't take advantage of that situation by doing a lot of sundering themselves, GM's and the campaign as a whole will avoid using it. However, if players increasing use sunder, and it is recognized to be a valid tactic, there is no reason to expect GM's and authors not to use it as well. IMO, we are better off staying away from it to prevent hurt feelings.
Throwing soft balls is not the best route, imo. Having NPCs use sunder just adds to the levels of strategy that must be planned for. And costs some $$ in repairs, of course. It's a valid tactic now, unless they want to ban the maneuver entirely. It's a bit dubious that NPCs never have adamantium weapons themselves, even the ones higher level than the PCs.
|
|
How does PCs using sunder "take advantage" of NPCs not using sunder? Aren't the two completely independent of each other?
Not taking advantage of the NPC's, taking advantage of the fact that the campaign is intentionally avoiding using sunder against PCs. Fundamentally, yes they are two different issues, but if player use of sunder was to increase, I would expect it to become a tactic used more often against players. Most of us would agree that sunder is a great tactic to gain advantage vs. your opponent
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How does PCs using sunder "take advantage" of NPCs not using sunder? Aren't the two completely independent of each other?Not taking advantage of the NPC's, taking advantage of the fact that the campaign is intentionally avoiding using sunder against PCs.
How is the fact that the campaign doesn't use sunder against PCs something that can be taken advantage of by using sunder against NPCs? What advantage? How is sunder against NPCs improved by the fact that it doesn't go the other way? I don't understand what you're trying to communicate when you talk about taking advantage of the lack of sunder tactics by using sunder.
if player use of sunder was to increase, I would expect it to become a tactic used more often against players.
Why?
|
I'd like it if more scenarios utilized NPC use of Sunder. It's a scary tactic. And even if your gear gets Sundered, you can always make it whole at the end of the scenario.
It's really no different than clearing any other condition from your character.
But I bet you the moment an NPC Sunders the Fighter's Greatsword, or the Cleric's Holy Symbol, the rest of the party will start rethinking how to handle the combat.
I welcome the challenge.
|
|
How is the fact that the campaign doesn't use sunder against PCs something that can be taken advantage of by using sunder against NPCs? What advantage? How is sunder against NPCs improved by the fact that it doesn't go the other way? I don't understand what you're trying to communicate when you talk about taking advantage of the lack of sunder tactics by using sunder.
Oh come on. You're smarter than this. Sunder is clearly a good tactic to use. The only reason it is not seen more often is because the campaign is intentionally avoid it so they're aren't complaints about "the GM broke my stuff." Clearly there is a portion (and not a small one) of the community that does not want to see sunder used as a tactic.
So, if players use it, it becomes an advantage in that they do not have to face the same. It would be the same if authors/developers avoided the use of power attack, or any other legal game mechanic that provides an advantage over the opponent.
There are a lot of times when the NPC/monster build is such that sundering would be a great addition, but it is not used. If players use it, then its not a stretch to think it is an "okay" tactic and therefore should be available to use against them and therefore the appearance of it as a tactic in the scenarios would increase.
I am not trying to encourage the increase of sunder, nor continuing to maintain the status quo, nor making an assessment of the good/bad value of sunder. Just trying to impart some insight into why things are the way they are and what might happen if we change it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...I think you and I have different understandings of what "take advantage of" means. When I hear "take advantage of NPCs not using sunder", I hear "gain an advantage that I wouldn't have if NPCs did use sunder". Apparently you mean "get an advantage that the non-sundering NPCs don't have".
I was trying to figure out how the lack of NPC sundering provided an advantage that PCs wouldn't have if the NPCs did sunder, but apparently what you were trying to say was more along the lines of "a tactic that only PCs get to use isn't fair".
Is that right?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was trying to figure out how the lack of NPC sundering provided an advantage that PCs wouldn't have if the NPCs did sunder,Isn't the advantage that PC's never have to devote any resources(money, feats etc.) to protecting their equipment?
Yes, but that advantage doesn't manifest itself by means of the PCs using sunder themselves.
"PCs don't invest in gear defense/recovery" takes advantage of non-sundering campaign policies.
"PCs use sunder" does not.
|
I can only rember one NPC that specifically uses sunder, with and Adamantine weapon no less. I can think of at least two scenarios that have Rust Monsters, and another with a creature that deals significant damage to weapons when hit by them. My Monk lost a Temple Sword that way, then a good bit of flesh when he decided punching the creature and taking the damage was better than letting it swallow his party members.
I don't particularly have a hatred of sunder. It's no more or less annoying to me than a grapple, trip, or disarm build. Things, I might point out, which are almost equally rare for NPCs from my experience. I can only remember facing one NPC with Improved Disarm (or, at least, who used it), and most of the grapples and trips came from creatures with grab or trip on their natural attacks. If a player wants to build their character around sunder, more power to them. I'd hope they were familiar enough with the rules for it to help keep the game from bogging down, but other than that, I don't see an issue.
EDIT: I'll also add that I don't think I've ever run across a PC built around sunder, as a GM or a player. So even if it's a problem, I don't think it's a big one. I have run into several grapple and trip builds.
|
|
I was trying to figure out how the lack of NPC sundering provided an advantage that PCs wouldn't have if the NPCs did sunder,Isn't the advantage that PC's never have to devote any resources(money, feats etc.) to protecting their equipment?Yes, but that advantage doesn't manifest itself by means of the PCs using sunder themselves.
"PCs don't invest in gear defense/recovery" takes advantage of non-sundering campaign policies.
"PCs use sunder" does not.
I'd argue that "PCs use sunder" does somewhat take advantage since sundering ability crosses over into sundering defenses.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
sunder, and it is recognized to be a valid tactic, there is no reason to expect GM's and authors not to use it as well.
I'm fine with this. I've now had two Sunder master builds in PFS, and I've had a fair number of GM's try to sunder or disarm my stuff. To date, I've been disarmed once (CMD at 7th level is mid 30's.) So I've got no problem with GM's trying the tactic, it isn't likely to work. ;-)
|
|
From a GM perspective, its really difficult to deal with. You have to recalc stats on the fly. Also, most PFS enemies DON'T carry back up weapons, which is basically a save vs die on them. In my home games EVERY NPC will at least have a backup dagger or something. Disarm does the same thing. They are more annoying and time consuming than an issue.
Sundering a Warrior's weapon in PFS is nearly the same as a save or die. That being said I've worked with a few Sunder characters, though I haven't actually used them yet.
|
I find all this talk about sunder very funny, as there's a Season 5 scenario that relies heavily on it, and a second one that has it as an incidental effect. I've had to pull out my sunder cheat sheet a lot more since Season 5 has started.
I agree that sunder shouldn't be used that often, but it's nice every so often.
|
|
I can only rember one NPC that specifically uses sunder, with and Adamantine weapon no less. I can think of at least two scenarios that have Rust Monsters, and another with a creature that deals significant damage to weapons when hit by them. My Monk lost a Temple Sword that way, then a good bit of flesh when he decided punching the creature and taking the damage was better than letting it swallow his party members.
Don't forget Caryatid Columns... those damned things make you pay for attacking in melee (woe to the poor monk who doesn't realize what they do... can you say broken hands?). I can now think of three scenarios and a module with them, and that's not even trying hard.
Or all of the Babaus that seem to be around... although, their risk is more about table variation (depending on whether the GM applies Hardness to the acid damage, which nullifies the risk if you are using any sort of metal weapon, which is counter-intuitive).
Or oozes... or...
Actually, I'd like to see some situations where sundering comes into play. Example... the Stone Giant grabs you, and tears off your armor, chuckling about the "soft skins" as he throws the melee dude down.
Some of this could be potentially alleviated with some scrolls (or oils or wands) laying around, 'cause the bad guy wants to repair the best gear (for his minions, etc).
I can see it now... you are approaching the final room in 9-1434 "Halls of the Sunder Masters", and you see a motley crew of mooks coming at you, in a variety of obviously poorly repaired gear. As you engage the mooks, you realize they are far better equipped than you would have expected, and they start sundering your defensive gear, rather than attacking directly! Then you notice the BBEG Acadamae Graduate Conjurer, who starts throwing hordes of lesser summons at you... and they can now hit because you no longer have your armor!
|
|
I forgot about the Caryatid Columns. I've run into those before, too. and something destroyed my melee Oracle's backup cold iron heavy flail, but I can't remember what it was.
To those with sunder PCs, I hope I'm at a table with you someday. I enjoy seeing different builds put to good use. At this point, though, the ratio of things in scenarios that can destroy your items to scenarios is anecdotally higher than the ratio of players with sunder build characters to the number of PFS players, at least in the areas I've played/GMed. Though I think that has more to do with players locally preferring high damage builds
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Caryatid Columns ... make you pay for attacking in melee (woe to the poor monk
They still need to exceed hardness, and if not they don't damage the weapon.
Also Natural weapons and Unarmed Strike take no damage ever.
Is there a clarification somewhere, because their ability just says "weapon" not "manufactured weapon."
Shouldn't need one, because it says magical or non-magical and Natural and Unarmed Strikes can't be magical or non-magical.
They also don't have hardness and can't gain the broken condition because they are not objects.
Plus it has been clarified many times.
|
|
Shouldn't need one, because it says magical or non-magical and Natural and Unarmed Strikes can't be magical or non-magical.
Well, I think Magic Fang would count. Cut and paste from the Pathfinder SRD (http://paizo.com/prd/spells/magicFang.html):
MAGIC FANG
School transmutation; Level druid 1, ranger 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Seems to me, based upon that, a natural weapon or unarmed strike could be made magical, either temporarily or permanently.
|
|
Striking at a man's weapon is a perfectly valid tactic. Evil men are often made bold by the power of a weapon or the safety of armor, and destroying these accoutrements may make their already fragile courage turn to craven temerity by showing them the true weakness of evil!
You should only attempt such maneuvers if you have an encyclopedic knowledge of how they work, however; such as though you had some kind of reference material that you could see at a moment's notice. In your head, obviously, as taking time out of battle to refer to texts is ludicrous!