|
Goofing off in character creation. Making a Wreaker Barbarian/Wrecker Oracle, with a theme around sundering stuff.
Now, I'm calculating damage and I've got a few traits/abilities/qualities which add bonus damage against objects. I also have the Greater sunder feat, which carries over excess sunder damage to the person holding the item.
Can I apply this bonus damage against objects to the person holding the item if the item is destroyed and I have excess damage?
If not, do I have any control over which bonus damage is applied first when sundering objects?
PS: At present, my 10th level character is ignoring 6 hardness, then doing 5d6+20 with raging power attack sunder maneuvers. It does seem reasonable that I'm going to be destroying armor and having the damage carry over. At present, 2d6+2 of that is specific to attacking objects/sundering.
EDIT: Amusing, went pure battle oracle, and now I ignore 10 points of hardness, but I'm doing 4pts less of of damage against objects. I think the first character has 18 strength, so I suppose that build would be better if I increased the starting strength.
|
|
Oh, I found lots of ways to get it to do more damage or bypass more hardness, the issue at hand is that bonus damage for a sunder interacting with the Greater Sunder feat.
Potentially, a character can deal more damage with a weapon that sunders through the armor and strikes the target than they could if they were just striking the target. That's the oddity I'm trying to figure out if is correct.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can you give more detailed examples? Most of the time with the "bonus damage to objects" damage, you don't exceed the object's hardness and hit points.
As for the RAW question of whether or not you can use a "+X to objects" in the same calculation using Greater Sunder to deal damage to the NPC/Monster, I think you may need to ask the GM in question. It isn't directly covered in the rules and is somewhat contradictory (if it deals bonus damage to objects but you already dealt enough to destroy it then it isn't dealing bonus damage to an object anymore.)
|
|
Can you give more detailed examples? Most of the time with the "bonus damage to objects" damage, you don't exceed the object's hardness and hit points.
For Examples, I've got the Breaker Barbarian Archetype(Advanced Player's Guide), with Destructive(ex) which adds half the class level as bonus damage on sunder attempts.
I'm also using a "breaking" weapon, which is a +1 enhancement cost magic weapon quality (Pathfinder Player Companion: Dungeoneer's handbook) which adds 2d6 damage against unattended objects, crystaline creatures and to sunder attempts. It also ignores hardness for objects with 5 or less (I was using the wrecker oracle curse, so this second ability wasn't doing anything). This one is essentially "bane" for objects.
There is also a "shattering" weapon, which is from the same source as "breaking" which requires a +2 enhancement. This one alters the extra damage to d10s and grants further bonus on critical multipliers against objects, crystaline creatures and sunder attempts. (I decided this second one had no real value, as my wrecker oracle uses broken weapons only, so it didn't add to the critical multiplier, so It was too costly for what it did)
I'm pretty sure there are others, but those are the key ones I've been using.
As for the RAW question of whether or not you can use a "+X to objects" in the same calculation using Greater Sunder to deal damage to the NPC/Monster, I think you may need to ask the GM in question. It isn't directly covered in the rules and is somewhat contradictory (if it deals bonus damage to objects but you already dealt enough to destroy it then it isn't dealing bonus damage to an object anymore.)
Technically, it isn't contradictory. I'm dealing bonus damage to the sunder attempt. If that damage exceeds the HP of the target object, any excess is carried over into the wearer. The rules are pretty clear as is. You could describing this as an especially destructive blow against the armor which caused shrapnel to explode from the impact, making the armor cause the extra damage, rather than the weapon itself.
I was mostly just making sure this isn't already covered somewhere else. Seems like this would have come up before now. It does seem like this, or a similar rules interaction, would already be resolved, I just couldn't think of any examples that matched.
It's probably one of those ones that works as written, so why change....
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I still think you might be mathematically better off with an adamantine weapon and Steelhand Circle ring (which should ignore 24 hardness or less) than you would with a special weapon that isn't adamantine. The +1 breaker enhancement seems bad in every way compared to adamantine. But the shattering enhancement shuts down the GM arguments "you can't critical on an object" so you get something on a sunder critical instead of "just an ordinary hit" you get from many GMs.
As for "as written" defense on the bonus to objects vs Greater Sunder. I see all kind of GMs block all kind of things. I can imagine one blocking this.
I believe that, for the purpose of simplicity, ANY excess damage is carried over to the person. Otherwise, there's going to be a mathematical nightmare every time you attempt this ability, dragging everything down.
Although it doesn't make much sense to deal more damage through this ability than simply hitting the target, you can explain it in several ways:
- Target is unused to having no armour, expecting it to protect them so you strike a critical blow where they expected a deflection
- If metal armour, pieces of the armour stab into the exposed enemy.
- The magical nature of your weapon gains strength on shattering armour, pushing further into your foe
- The enemy is greatly demoralized by the strike, reducing their ability to defend themselves.
|
|
I still think you might be mathematically better off with an adamantine weapon and Steelhand Circle ring (which should ignore 24 hardness or less) than you would with a special weapon that isn't adamantine
I'm unclear on this, but I don't think the adamantine weapon ignore objects hardness if 20 or less, would stack with any ability to ignore hardness (like the Steelhand Circle ring or the oracle wrecker curse). As I read it, you don't get to ignore 5pts of hardness, then consider it an object with hardness 20 or less, and ignore that hardness too. I don't think it happens in steps. I think the adamantium quality would only use the hardness listed as 20 or less. If higher than 20, you'd default to the Steelhand Circle ring or Oracle Wrecker Curse.
I do think the Steelhand Circle ring would stack with the oracle's wrecker curse, given that both just ignore hardness, not hardness of a certain number or less.