Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Hmm... can you make a slight of hand check as part of your casting to conceal what pouch you pulled things from / conceal the fact that you pulled anything out? Or would that require an extra action?
By the way, is there anything in the rules that says you have to have the material component in hand? As far as I can tell, unless the spell has semantic components, the components can just stay in your pouch. (Note that you can cast material component spells while pinned, or with two hands full.)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
By the way, is there anything in the rules that says you have to have the material component in hand? As far as I can tell, unless the spell has semantic components, the components can just stay in your pouch. (Note that you can cast material component spells while pinned, or with two hands full.)
Yes, you need a free hand to use material components. BTW, I think that you mean 'somatic components', not 'semantic components'.
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any).
|
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?
It may not be a direct causal relationship. But many who create sunderers would not be happy to be sundered.
|
It may not be a direct causal relationship. But many who create sunderers would not be happy to be sundered.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?
Which is why many of our number just run around with tons of adamantine. Good luck effectively sundering adamantine without more adamantine.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
make a slight of hand check as part of your casting ... require an extra action?
have to have the material component in hand? ... while pinned, or with two hands full.)
Yes extra action.
Yes you must manipulate the material component, no you can't cast a spell with material component while pinned.
you can assume that you have them if you have your spell component pouch.
If it is sundered on the ground, do you have it?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Sunder builds in my area all seem to have added other things to boost the HP as well. (Stones of Fortification, etc) In some cases, if you do enough damage to sunder the sunder build's gear, you would have killed the sunder build twice. (In which case, the relatively low cost of Make Whole vs Raise dead translates to being *very* pleased their weapon was sundered.
|
|
Huh. Weird realization there, using a wooden club to break an adamantine weapon is just about as effective as using an adamantine greatsword...Not true. An Adamantine Longsword is very effective against an Adamantine Longsword.
*headscratch* I think you think I said something other than what I said.
The sunderING weapon's material is oddly irrelevant.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The sunderING weapon's material is oddly irrelevant.
Maybe I am confused.
But a Club doesn't have the "ignore 19 or less" that Adamantine has and an Adamantine Longsword doesn't have hardness of 20 like the material does. It is less. So the club would need to exceed the hardness, but the Adamantine Longsword would ignore the hardness of the Adamantine Longsword the opponent has.
|
|
The sunderING weapon's material is oddly irrelevant.Maybe I am confused.
But a Club doesn't have the "ignore 19 or less" that Adamantine has and an Adamantine Longsword doesn't have hardness of 20 like the material does. It is less. So the club would need to exceed the hardness, but the Adamantine Longsword would ignore the hardness of the Adamantine Longsword the opponent has.
An adamantite longsword DOES have a hardness of 20.
For a weapon that is entirely made of one material (such as a one-handed blade), if that material isn't the standard material for that weapon, use that material's hardness from Table 7–13 instead of the default hardness on Table 7–12. For example, a wooden longsword has hardness 5, a glass longsword has hardness 1, and an adamantine longsword has hardness 20.
I don't know how you're reading it the other way but what I see is in line with what the FAQ says and is the specific example of how it works.
|
|
Huh. Weird realization there, using a wooden club to break an adamantine weapon is just about as effective as using an adamantine greatsword...Not true. An Adamantine Longsword is very effective against an Adamantine Longsword.
I'm not sure that FAQ supports your argument. All its saying is how to determine hardness based on material type and weapon category.
Adamantine ignores hardness less than 20 which means it does not ignore its own hardness.
|
|
My main issue with sunder is using it to sunder something that's composite, like a spell component pouch.
Breaking it doesn't necessarily break the spell components, and there are no rules for what does happen to items in a sundered container.
So now you put me,the GM, in the position of making a ruling. Do I end the fight on the first round, or do I try to find a way that the components are still useful?
If you are reasonable about sunder targets, and you accept my ruling on complex targets, then I have no issue.
I would rule the components are fine. They would happen to be all over the floor and would provoke one up.
I would also allow him to spend a full round action that provokes gatheirng them all into his pockets.
|
|
Letting them spend a full round action to gather the stuff up is kind of a moot point by then. A.) it's going to provoke from every martial in existence and B.) it's a spell caster having to miss a turn on the battlefield with big instruments of stabbity-death. They are already borked.
Depends if they go invisible or something that could protect them. Emergecy force dome or whatever. Then they have better chances.
The idea of sundering it is to remove a vital item the creature needs. If the PC use that tactic there should results of them succeeding at that tactic.
Considering they could grapple and shut down that wizard almost just as easy I think it is fair.
|
|
The average level 12 fighter is going to have such a ridiculously high sunder CMB that you can have all the cover you want; you just pray they roll a 1. Besides that, the assumption is that a sunder pouch is on the belt. As a GM, I wouldn't feel it appropriate to arbitrarily decide it's being kept somewhere else without a notation already in the stat block. That being said, everyone has their own style; I'm certain others would see no problems with it.
I guess in the end I just feel like sunder monkeys deserve to reap the just rewards of their build where applicable. They did, after all, shell out the necessary gold and feat slots to make it viable. I tend to be fairly ruthless as a GM anyway, so it's nice to know some parties will have some kind of foil to stop me from (assuming the tactics are invalidated or sufficiently loose to allow for more intelligent play) trapping the party in a triangle made of firewalls and opening a pit underneath them.
|
|
Off topic, what I find more annoying in PFS is a bare hand monk using disarm.They get a -4. What do you find so annyoing? I honestly have only seen disarm used 1 time in PFS.
Wait why do they get a -4?
I find annoying because they disarm weapon, auto get weapon and then they can do whatever they want with it to include throwing it. And like it has been mentioned, too many opponents don't have a backup.
|
|
.. That's a good question. Why DO they get a -4? I have not heard of this.
The argument for the -4
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
The argument against the -4
Improved unarmed strike: Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
|
|
Off topic, what I find more annoying in PFS is a bare hand monk using disarm.They get a -4. What do you find so annyoing? I honestly have only seen disarm used 1 time in PFS.Wait why do they get a -4?
I find annoying because they disarm weapon, auto get weapon and then they can do whatever they want with it to include throwing it. And like it has been mentioned, too many opponents don't have a backup.
well wouldn't throwing it provoke?
You dislike disarm? What about grapple? Grapple shuts down people and is more universal. You can grapple much more than you can disarm.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find annoying because they disarm weapon, auto get weapon and then they can do whatever they want with it to include throwing it. And like it has been mentioned, too many opponents don't have a backup.
[In the arms of an angel]Hello I'm Sarah Ann McLachlan. For less than adventurers are willing to spend on an Inn room you can sponser a back up weapon, holy symbol, and spell component pouch for the Big bads at the end of the dungeon. These poor creatures are suffering disarms, sunders, and grapples and ignominious deaths at the hands of cruel, merciless adventurer's, often without knowing why. Please, won't you help them? [/In the arms of an angel]
|
|
.. That's a good question. Why DO they get a -4? I have not heard of this.The argument for the -4
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
The argument against the -4
Improved unarmed strike: Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Shouldn't the text I have bolded pretty much completely defeat the argument for the -4? I mean that's uh... pretty obvious nail in that coffin, in my opinion.
|
|
Grapple is exciting! Though I have seen it shut opponents down, but it takes much longer to do so. While disarm is an immediate shut down. There is still a lot you can do while grappled, while if you are disarmed, you either use your fists and provoke or pick up your weapon and provoke. And most occasion I see a disarming monk he is also tripping so the provoking is causing a trip. A viscous cycle of boring non exciting combat.
That is why I never make builds that do things like that, it is boring.
|
|
Grapple is exciting! Though I have seen it shut opponents down, but it takes much longer to do so. While disarm is an immediate shut down. There is still a lot you can do while grappled, while if you are disarmed, you either use your fists and provoke or pick up your weapon and provoke. And most occasion I see a disarming monk he is also tripping so the provoking is causing a trip. A viscous cycle of boring non exciting combat.
Tetori monks would like a word with you. It's pretty easy to set them up to pin someone in the same round the grapple starts. In any case, I sorta feel bad for monks. The use of combat maneuvers gets called out regularly by GMs as game breaking, undesired, overpowered, etc. .... It's also one of the very, VERY few things that particular class can do extremely well.
|
|
I understand your point. As a DM when I get the lulls of comabt I try to be more descriptive and go into the combat more. I try to provide witty banter or something different. I had a bad guy getting grappled and lucky escape get grappled and lucky escape. I had the bad guy crying and pouting about it. To make it more entertaining.
I see a few greater grapples. I grapple, I maintain and pin. I win.
I think it is exciting when the monsters can grapple. Or when the enemy disarms. I think those are exciting. Basically when the baddies use combat manuevers.
I had an encounter when the bad guy Clundered(cleave sunder). That was exciting too.
|
|
My group very nearly had a bad encounter with cleave. We were playing <BEEP> and some obnoxious plant life messed up my hellknight (lulz at roll 1 on a save). The party spell caster managing to get off a mind controlling spell (rolled terrible again) was all that stopped the great cleave from laying down shot kills.
That was definitely one of those amusing times where "bad guy is about to use cleave. ... Wait, bad guy is party member. FUUUUU"
|
[In the arms of an angel]Hello I'm Sarah Ann McLachlan. For less than adventurers are willing to spend on an Inn room you can sponser a back up weapon, holy symbol, and spell component pouch for the Big bads at the end of the dungeon. These poor creatures are suffering disarms, sunders, and grapples and ignominious deaths at the hands of cruel, merciless adventurer's, often without knowing why. Please, won't you help them? [/In the arms of an angel]
I find annoying because they disarm weapon, auto get weapon and then they can do whatever they want with it to include throwing it. And like it has been mentioned, too many opponents don't have a backup.
This was so much win I had to repost it.
|
|
Off topic, what I find more annoying in PFS is a bare hand monk using disarm.They get a -4. What do you find so annyoing? I honestly have only seen disarm used 1 time in PFS.
Oddly, I have two different PCs that are trip/disarm builds, although one is trip/disarm primary with the feats, and a very high Dex; while the other has, only at 8th level, gotten one of the Improved feats, but is a Lore Warden with the Whip Mastery feats...
And the first one provoked a thread in the GM boards in days gone by. Our local GM (then VC) really, really didn't like that trip (only) build. I added disarm instead of going for Fury's Fall, and I think he regretted it even more....
|
|
I think part of the problem is that as a GM we enjoy making the Fights exciting for the players, making it challenging without any deaths but with that feel of danger. The problem is when you have builds, no matter what they are that shuts that ability down, not only does it upset a GM because it makes it harder to give that feeling of excitement and danger but it also takes that away from the other players.
Not saying there are not times to use that stuff, but to constantly use it in battles just makes the game boring.
Due to some of the restraints in PFS it is hard to counter that so it just raises our frustrations further.
It is not because as a GM we want to win, but we want to be able to make the game enjoyable fo everyone.