Sundering Ioun Stones?

[Alesk Cupworth]

I readily admit this is a super corner-case question, but I ask it nonetheless:

When attacking an orbiting Ioun Stone, do I
Use the Sunder combat maneuver rules against its owner?
or
Do I attack the stone itself?

If the latter, which of its owner's magical defenses bolster the stone's AC?

Meat and Potatoes

The Sunder Combat Maneuver's specific wording says *"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent..."*

Technically, Ioun Stones are neither held nor worn. They float around their owner. What's more, they autonomously "...change course to avoid any obstacles in their path,", leading me to believe attacking the stone's AC could be correct.

"Ioun stones have AC 24, 10 hit points, and hardness 5."

Additionally, "An ioun stone in orbit counts as an attended object, and benefits from any magical protections possessed by its owner."

As far as I can tell, attended object is only relevant to saving throws. However, the magical protections possessed by its owner clause is open-ended in interpretation.

Does it count for only strictly magical protections such as a deflection bonus(say, from a Ring of Protection) or a caster's Mage Armor? Or does it include any protection that is magically enhanced, such as magically enhanced shields/armor?

[MeanMutton]

Seems clear to me that if you want to attack them, use the AC 24, 10 hp, hardness 5. So, yeah, super easy to destroy. Otherwise, I'm not sure what that is supposed to refer to - when they're sitting around, inert? Seems like a stretch.

[boring7]

Pretty sure it only applies to saving throws. Actually, I'm not even sure how sunder works. The lazy perusal of the SRD doesn't mention what AC you're actually supposed to hit when engaging in a sunder attempt.

Sundering is a hassle anyway, it's kind of a jerk move by the GM, and no player wants to break the thing they want to steal and keep.

[MeanMutton]

boring7 wrote:

Pretty sure it only applies to saving throws. Actually, I'm not even sure how sunder works. The lazy perusal of the SRD doesn't mention what AC you're actually supposed to hit when engaging in a sunder attempt.

Sundering is a hassle anyway, it's kind of a jerk move by the GM, and no player wants to break the thing they want to steal and keep.

Sundering really only works well as a player when you're attacking nonmagical armor. The weight-to-gp ratio of armor is rather poor unless it's enchanted so it's worth it for the murder-hobo to smash it to pieces.

[strumbleduck]

Sundering an ioun stone should use the normal rules for sundering a carried or worn object. That is, you make a combat maneuver check against the opponent's CMD. This represents the fact that the wearer of the stone can attempt to dodge the sunder, e.g. by moving his head, or deflecting your blow with his sword.

The text describing the AC of an ioun stone is just a holdover from 3.5, where attacks against carried or worn items (i.e. anything but a sword or a shield) used the AC of the item. If the designers had intended for sundering ioun stones to be possible without succeeding at a sunder combat maneuver, they would have been much more explicit about it.

[boring7]

Aaaah, that's what it is.

[Godunderscor]

strumbleduck wrote:

Sundering an ioun stone should use the normal rules for sundering a carried or worn object. That is, you make a combat maneuver check against the opponent's CMD. This represents the fact that the wearer of the stone can attempt to dodge the sunder, e.g. by moving his head, or deflecting your blow with his sword.

The text describing the AC of an ioun stone is just a holdover from 3.5, where attacks against carried or worn items (i.e. anything but a sword or a shield) used the AC of the item. If the designers had intended for sundering ioun stones to be possible without succeeding at a sunder combat maneuver, they would have been much more explicit about it.

I'd assume you're correct. Both Seekers of Secrets(wherefrom I assume the "facts about Ioun Stones" comes from) and the Core Rulebook were published in 2009. Old material, certainly.