Sunder the Door Off

[Cuup]

In a recent session as my Sundering Barbarian, my group and I were raiding a castle. We knew there was a room with 4 Wizards on the other side of the door, which we needed to cross to complete our mission. They most likely knew we were coming and were aiming 4 spells at the door, ready to ambush us. I announced that I wanted to Sunder the door off its hinges and run straight into the room, using the door as cover.

Our DM was very insistent that to Sunder the door would leave the door in pieces, and useless as a shield, and the maneuver I was describing was a straight Str check. Alternatively, I could sunder the hinges themselves, but that would require 3 separate Sunders, something that would leave me without a Move action, and render our dynamic entrance ineffective.

Despite a trip to the SRD, no one could find anything that backed either stance, so the DM's call ruled, and I took 4 Lightening Bolts to the teeth when I Sundered the door. Did we miss anything?

[Jiggy]

Is the GM always that precise on the rules? I mean, strictly speaking, the sunder rules talk about "broken" and "destroyed", and say nothing of cutting it in a certain manner. But usually it seems like I hear GMs complaining about players reducing world interaction to explicitly-listed mechanics, not the other way around. Seeing it in this direction feels kind of bizarre.

As a result, it therefore sounds to me like the GM wanted you to listen to a story. Instead, you threatened to help write it. He found a technical escape clause to keep that from happening.

Did he use phrases like "trivializing encounters" or "you can't negate X with just a Y"? Those tend to be red flags.

[RumpinRufus]

Basically, what you were trying to do is not in any way supported by the rules. Whether your GM wants to "Rule of Cool" it is another story, but he is definitely on the right side of the rules here.

What you were trying to do is basically use the door as an improvised tower shield, and use it for total cover. Besides the fact that improvised shields do not exist, using a tower shield to grant total cover is a standard action and involves planting the tower shield in place on a single edge.

So, if he had let you run in using the door as cover, that would essentially be a much better version of an already-existing item (i.e. a tower shield that provides total cover even while moving and without using a standard action,) even though it is improvised.

In the future though, you should look at the Stunning Irruption feat.

[MurphysParadox]

Nope. Sundering means fairly indiscriminate smashing. You are either destroying the door, thus having no control over the state of the door after its been broken to bits, or you have to sunder the hinges individually since each item is a different thing.

Should have sundered two hinges on one turn, then the next do the third hinge and charge in with the door as a shield. Would have been good fun!

[Noir le Lotus]

You could have sunder the hinges, let another melee character rush into the room using the door as a cover. It would have blocked the 4 lightning bolts and noone would have took damage ...

[LazarX]

Jiggy wrote:

Is the GM always that precise on the rules? I mean, strictly speaking, the sunder rules talk about "broken" and "destroyed", and say nothing of cutting it in a certain manner. But usually it seems like I hear GMs complaining about players reducing world interaction to explicitly-listed mechanics, not the other way around. Seeing it in this direction feels kind of bizarre.

As a result, it therefore sounds to me like the GM wanted you to listen to a story. Instead, you threatened to help write it. He found a technical escape clause to keep that from happening.

Did he use phrases like "trivializing encounters" or "you can't negate X with just a Y"? Those tend to be red flags.

That's wrong. the GM was perfectly willing to let them do a classic "burst through the door" operation. the OP in question wanted both that, and the tatical advantage of using the door as a shield. So it's more of a case of letting the PC's "write the story" but not giving the barbarian player everything he wanted.

Sometimes certain things you want will preclude others. The only way to go through door instantly is either by opening it, presuming it's unlocked, or smashing it via sunder. The second method means you no longer have a door to play tower shield with, because you've smashed it into flinders.

[Cuup]

Thanks, those tower shield rules actually put it in a relatable perspective. Honestly, I wasn’t looking for cover per say. A +1 circumstance bonus to AC for 1 round would have made me happy (even if it would have been useless vs. 4 Lightning Bolts). Anyway, Multiclassing into Monk (Martial Artist) for Evasion, and the Eater of Magic Rage Power almost fully negated all 4 Lightning Bolts, so it wasn’t a big deal. I was just looking for an unbiased opinion, and the reference to improvised shields was a good way to look at it. And for the record, the DM wasn’t trying to railroad or punish me for trying that, he made a call he was confident with, and I, as the player, knew the risks I was taking by accepting that course of action. Thanks, everyone!

[Pizza Lord]

Sunder applies to trying to break objects in other creature's possession. Otherwise it's just an attack on an object, or more specifically Smashing an object.

The rules you want are in the Dungeon section, under Doors.
Doors

There's a lot of information, more than I want to post. Information on smashing hinges can be found in the Doors section, after rules on locks, stuck doors, and barred doors.

As for using the door as a shield, smashing the hinges would leave the 'door' intact enough to be used as cover, though if a lightning bolt did enough damage it would blow through the door. Assuming a wooden door (hardness 5) it would require 20 damage (good) or 25 damage (strong), including the hardness to destroy. Since electricity damage is halved, that means the lightning bolt would have to deal 40 or 50 damage to do it, respectively. Tough, but possible.

[Tarantula]

I also go with you have to sunder the hinges specifically to keep the door intact.

While it is a cool idea to burst through a door and use it as shield, it doesn't really make sense unless you actually break the hinges. Or you could have someone disable device on the hinges, keeping your element of surprise.

[Losobal]

Yeah I would have interpreted it as "If you sunder through the door itself, you leave it in a state useless for anything beyond kindling."

I appreciate the attempt at the visual tho, would have been fun.

[Ravingdork]

You attempted a stunning irruption without the Stunning Irruption feat?

Your GM made the right ruling.

Just kidding. Seriously though, that way of thinking only leads to darkness. I can't stand feats and abilities whose existence actually limit options rather than expand upon them, such as the Strike Back feat or the interplanetary teleport spell.

[Caïen]

For God's sake, DO NOT render useless a creative thinking by invoking the existence of a feat that does something similar ONLY in fluff. This only result in playing a soulless game with cold mechanics similar to a poorly done video game rpg...

[_Ozy_]

Yeah, the OP says nothing about even surprising much less stunning the casters inside, only trying to obtain cover from the sundered door. This has nothing to do with the stunning irruption feat.

[Ravingdork]

I guess the humor wasn't as obvious as I had hoped. Edited my post so as to be clearer.

[Caïen]

Sorry, my Sarcasm-o-meter isn't well functionning in english.

[Bronnwynn]

I'd have allowed you to do that with a strength check as part of a move, and probably given you a bonus on the str check if you declared a charge and made no attack inside the room. I would not allow you to do that as a sunder - or more accurately as a "smashing an object" style action.