| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear GM Blake, what your suggesting is very much a house rule. There are no rules for sundering individual components of a weapon, simply the stats for what a bow should have, which is hardness 5 with 5 hit points that is modified by magic.
As a player I would be highly opposed to your sunder the bow string tactic. Especially when you consider going down the road of "I sunder your armor straps to remove your full plate off your body" and how to adjudicate that.
I do however agree with your general premise of setting up situations that are very much not in favor of a specific character at times (and not too often). Forcing them to rely on other strategies to contribute to the encounter. Strong winds, wind wall, and other tactics work just fine to stymie a ranged character without resorting to this sort of tactic.
Just my 2 coppers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a CMB modifier for targeting a specific component of an object as opposed to the object as a whole? Can I destroy the hilt of a greatsword? The straps of a shield?
Does the bowstring of a magical bow get increased hit points?
It's not a terrible idea to allow called shots on objects, but it's not very RAI.
A schoolgirl with a dagger can sunder a bowstring.She's not beating the archers CMD without a lot of luck.
That is true. I did not mean to imply that the CMB roll is easy for the schoolgirl, just that she does enough damage with a dagger, even with a <10 STR, that she could sunder the string.
To be clear GM Blake, what your suggesting is very much a house rule. There are no rules for sundering individual components of a weapon
True.
But I'm a permissive GM and I didn't do it first. Players did it to my NPCs before I ever did it to them. The conversation went something like:
Player: I want to break that guy's bow.
Me: OK, it's a sunder attempt. If you do 10 damage you'll break it.
Player: What if I just cut the string?
Me: Well, I guess the string shouldn't really have hardness 5 if a much thicker rope only has hardness 0.
Player: OK, I cut the string.
(it was a rogue sneaking up on a drow guarding the entrance to a cavern - he was afraid that his sneak attack damage might not kill the drow and he wanted to disarm the drow who was wearing his bow slung over his shoulder, very hard to disarm, so he decided to sunder it instead).
Once everyone found out how fun it was to snip bowstrings, it caught on at the table. On both sides of the GM screen.
|
That is true. I did not mean to imply that the CMB roll is easy for the schoolgirl, just that she does enough damage with a dagger, even with a <10 STR, that she could sunder the string.
True enough. I don't agree that it is rules legal, but it's certainly within the purview of the GM to introduce it. As others have said, it opens up a can of worm that I think is best left alone.
To be clear GM Blake, what your suggesting is very much a house rule. There are no rules for sundering individual components of a weaponTrue.
But I'm a permissive GM and I didn't do it first. Players did it to my NPCs before I ever did it to them. The conversation went something like:
Player: I want to break that guy's bow.
Me: OK, it's a sunder attempt. If you do 10 damage you'll break it.
Player: What if I just cut the string?
Me: Well, I guess the string shouldn't really have hardness 5 if a much thicker rope only has hardness 0.
Player: OK, I cut the string.(it was a rogue sneaking up on a drow guarding the entrance to a cavern - he was afraid that his sneak attack damage might not kill the drow and he wanted to disarm the drow who was wearing his bow slung over his shoulder, very hard to disarm, so he decided to sunder it instead).
Once everyone found out how fun it was to snip bowstrings, it caught on at the table. On both sides of the GM screen.
That is fair, although if I had played with you I would have actually asked the player not to do that.
If I had GM'd that I would have told the player that if they wanted to do this parts of all items would be capable of being targeted individually and exactly how that would work mechanically would be decided by me as we encounter relevant situations. Included targeting the weak straps of armor, or weak places in magic items, etc.
But now that I have more backstory I don't think your decision is unfair. But I would really hate it is a player because the far reaching consequences are not worth the one time benefit (IMO).
Oops. I didn't mean to click on this thread.
Now I guess I have to acknowledge it on the Index...
...
...IIIII'll do it later.
a.) All others methods of getting into Melee are not available.
b.) The Melee cannot be helpful doing anything else. Heal checks to stabilize, Aid another, retrieving items, etc...
c.) The ranged weapon they are picking up will penetrate DR involved, and is enchanted equally with their main weapon.Otherwise unless the Ranged and caster characters can finish the fight without him the whole group should retreat, as the time to kill of an at CR enemy becomes so long that it is likely there will be deaths or a TPK.
This isn't justified by the numbers. In virtually every situation you show an example of switching a bow cuts damage to 1/2, or about 1/3 if serious DR problems are involved. That's not a reason to give up, that's actually pretty good.
Further, the number of rounds to kill something shouldn't be based on the melee character's reduced DPR. While the melee character is now in a situation where he is fighting non-optimally, at least one other character is probably now in an optimal situation. So, he is helping them.
The idea your party will die because the two-handed fighter loses half his damage against a flying opponent does not reflect any realistic scenario I can imagine.
That is fair, although if I had played with you I would have actually asked the player not to do that.
For me, I'm not a fan of GM decisions that are unreasonable. I include abject devotion to game mechanics that don't make sense.
I would not have wanted this conversation:
Player: I sunder the bowstring.
Me: It has hardness 5 and HP 5.
Player: What? Rope is much thicker and has hardness 0 and 2 HP.
Me: Yeah, but THIS string is attached to a wooden bow.
Player: I am not sundering the wooden part, I'm sundering the string part.
Me: You can't.
Player: Why not?
Me: Because game mechanics.
Player: But it doesn't make sense. I can see the string, can't I?
Me: Yep.
Player: I can reach the string, can't I?
Me: Yep.
Player: So I cut the string.
Me: No problem. Hardness 5, HP 5.
Player: I'm not sundering the wooden part!
Me: It's attached. That makes it all one thing.
Player: So If I tie a rope to a steel grappling hook, does that mean the entire rope now has hardness 10, HP 30 because it's attached to the steel?
Me: Well, no, because there is no "Rope with Grappnel" on the Object Hardness table, so we just use the separate parts.
Player: Why not use separate parts for the bow and bowstring?
Me: Because "projectile weapon" is on the chart. I have to use it. It's the law.
Player: So, cutting a bowstring is EXACTLY as hard as hacking a heavy crossbow in half?
Me: Yep, exactly.
Player: And bowstrings are at least 5x harder to cut than ordinary rope?
Me: Yes. At least.
Player: So, can I use a club to cut the bowstring?
Me: Actually, yes. Since it is attached to the wooden bow, it can be broken exactly like the wooden bow, so a club will snap a bowstring like a twig, even though the same club cannot cut rope (which is 5x easier to cut).
Player: You know that none of this makes sense, right?
Me: I'm a GM. RAW is RAW. My hands are tied; I cannot disobey the RAW. I AM THE RAW!
Actually, I don't even see it as a house rule. It's just applying core rules in a way that makes sense.
Now I guess I have to acknowledge it on the Index...
What index?
If you acknowledge the existence of an index on a thread, you oughtta include a link. Please.
|
As to sundering a bow string - I'd allow it, but I'd give them a significant CMB penalty to try it in combat (to the point where it's nearly un-hittable sans 20). The string would be far harder to get at than the bow itself. And if the bow is magic - I'd have the improved hardness/hp to carry over to the string.
(Of course - then you get into whether or not you could make a mithril wire bowstring.)
That is fair, although if I had played with you I would have actually asked the player not to do that.For me, I'm not a fan of GM decisions that are unreasonable. I include abject devotion to game mechanics that don't make sense.
I would not have wanted this conversation:
Player: I sunder the bowstring.
Me: You can't just sunder just the string, but you can attempt to sunder the bow and we can flavor it as attacking the string.Player: I am not sundering the wooden part, I'm sundering the string part.
Me: Doesn't matter, you're still sundering the bow, regardless of "what part you're aiming at."
Player: But it doesn't make sense. I can see the string, can't I?
Me: I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you but that's the rules. Yes you can see the string, but you're sundering the bow to make it unusable. It's going to work just like sundering anything else, which is similar to attacking someone. We're not using called shots so you can't just say you're aiming for his eye which should be a touch attack since he's not wearing a helmet, the attack is against AC, this sunder is to sunder the bow. So would you still like to try and sunder or do you want to try something else? Since it's unattended you could try to steal it.
Me: The rules don't model that situation in a granular fashion. You can attempt to sunder his weapon as per the normal rules. Do you still want that to be your action?I would not have wanted this conversation:
Player: I sunder the bowstring.
That's how I would handle it as a GM, explaining that unless they want this to carry over to all objects being able to be targeted at their weakest points for destruction I wouldn't let this work.
|
I'd say fine, but the string has the same hardness/hp as the rest of the weapon. What it lacks in hardness it makes up for with elasticity.
Weapons have uniform hardness/HP even if they are not all the same material. If you have a adamantie axe head on a balsa wood shaft, it's going to be real easy to sunder.
GM: Weapons have the stats they do for a reason. In this case so that archers that aren't on horeseback or flying or surrounded by hundreds of friends aren't completely screwed.
Really? Surrounded by hundreds of friends? And "completely screwed"?
A bit dramatic, don't you think.
Archers are hardly "completely screwed". Even if we "completely screw" them by disabling their one and only bow (they don't have a backup bow? Melee fighters usually carry a backup melee weapon, why don't archers have a backup ranged weapon?), then the worst case scenario is that they have to switch to a melee weapon for the rest of this combat.
You know, just as "completely screwed" as when a melee fighter is in battle with a flying enemy.
This thread started with people complaining that melee fighters are "completely screwed" when they have to use a bow and that's not balanced because ranged fighters are never "completely screwed" like that. I've showed one simple way that this statement does not need to be true, but now some people are arguing that it should be true?
I guess I will never understand this messageboard community...
Further argument will be considered an attempt at PvP by proxy against mister Ranger and you will be asked to leave the table.
Seriously? Trying to find a clever way to disable an enemy's weapon is a PVP attempt against another PC? Really?
Does this kind of "I'm the GM; worship my rulings or leave" attitude actually work on your friends? Or even complete strangers?
Me, if I was a new player in a game where a GM said this, I'd say "Thanks, you don't have to ask me to leave the table, I'll do that on my own." And if I were at a table when my friend said something like this, I'd hold my tongue but have a very serious conversation with him in private later - and if he couldn't see why this attitude is a deal-breaker for pretty much everyone (everyone I know, at least) then I'd leave that table, too.
I hope it works better for you.
Weapons have uniform hardness/HP even if they are not all the same material. If you have a adamantie axe head on a balsa wood shaft, it's going to be real easy to sunder.
No it won't. That balsa wood shaft will have hardness 20 and 40 HP, just like the adamantine axe head, right?
I mean, that's what people are saying about the bow string, that it has hardness 5 and 5 hp because it's attached to the wooden bow. Apparently, we're going for the larger of the two values (nobody is saying the wooden bow should be hardness 0 with 1 HP like the bowstring). So the balsa axe with the adamantine head would have the larger value applied to the haft, right?
Or does this only work in whatever way works best to argue against another player's forum post?
Because, really, if we are going strictly by RAW, that balsa wood axe with the adamantine head has hardness 5, HP 5, because that's the value for a "One handed hafted weapon". Note that these values don't seem to vary by substance - that footnote on the chart seems to only apply to armor. So it doesn't matter if that axe handle is oak, balsa, ironwood, steel, stone, or Ritz cracker, and it doesn't matter if that axe head is steel, adamantine, tin, cloth, or cheese - no matter what the separate parts are made of, a one-handed hafted weapon has hardness 5, HP 5.
Mmmmm, now I want a Ritz-and-cheese axe so I can fight AND enjoy a light snack while adventuring...
As long as your applying the bonuses from magic to the hardness and HP, I fully support DM Blake's take on this.
But how would you get the blood off?
Mmmmm, now I want a Ritz-and-cheese axe so I can fight AND enjoy a light snack while adventuring...
Who said anything about getting the blood off? I like my cheese and crackers with a good port wine, but blood'll do in a pinch.
Just don't think allowing parts of an object to be attacked over the whole of one is a smart idea in the long run. Buckles and straps on plate mail, why can't they be targeted? Now you've bypassed the entire AC of the character as his armour falls to the ground. It's no different.
Usually straps are protected by the plate. There are also multiple straps, so breaking only one would at best give it the broken condition, unless you managed to cut all of them.
Personally, house rule that objects have bonus to wielder's CMD equal to their size modifier and you are practically done.
|
|
The hardness of a weapon for the purpose of sunder is defined by the weakest part of the weapon.
The hit points are determined by what kind of weapon it is.
A bow has hardness 0, hp 5 for sundering, with the normal +2/+10 for each +1 enhancement bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, and it happens by level 5, so I would say by 4-5 having a fly potion > having a bow.0.75 hp.For DR(no clustered shots feat) take 10 from the weapon damage you will enter for each iterative attack. The final result will be the numbers you post here.That doesn't really work for DR when DR is a real problem. If I'm doing 1d8 damage, my average damage is 4.5. If I'm attacking DR 5, what's my average damage per hit?You are forgetting about STR. Since this whole thread is about a melee specialist using a bow as a backup he is going to have a decent STR. By the time flying creatures become a threat the player will be able to afford a bow with a STR bonus. Most melee focused characters have 18+ STR. That brings your average damage up to 8.5, or 3.5 after DR 5. Bow also have a x3 critical multiplier, so on a critical hit that brings the damage up to 25.5.
Compared to his normal damage this is not really all that much, but the point is it is better than nothing. The whole idea behind a backup is to use it when all else has failed. If you have to fall back to your backup you are already in a bad way. The idea is to prevent it from becoming worse. The best example is a company’s backup of their computer data. If they have to use the backup their hard drive has completely failed including the R.A.I.D., at this point the backup is their last shot at preventing total disaster.
The post above you takes the STR into account. It's still basically not worth pulling out a bow at higher levels. The melee fighter is not contributing enough to make any real difference, and if the rest of the party can't handle it, they should probably retreat or risk TPK.
In early levels yes definitely have a cheap ranged weapon around. By mid levels, 'Keep some potions of fly around' is a much better piece of advice.
Flying potions are not exactly cheap enough to buy in bulk, and most low level flyers do not have DR. At higher levels they might, but having a magical ranged weapon should be had by then anyway in case incorporeal creatures come up.
If the entire party's combined attacks can't handle one flying creature then the party as a whole has an issue. Between the caster's spells and everyone else plinking away at hit points of everyone else that creature should be on the ground before the TPK happens. I would assume the caster has prepared some attack(hit point) spells or he has another way to deal with flyers.PS: I do agree that being able to get into the enemies face is better for melee types. I dont think anyone disagrees with that. I just don't see a TPK happening unless the party is very poorly prepared as a whole. That is why "pick up a ranged weapon" is a decent answer in most cases.
The last time I had a player try to use his bow while threatened (he had the Point Blank Master feat), he found out that bowstrings are hardness 0 with 1 HP and anybody can sunder a bowstring with any slashing weapon even with minimum damage.Archers have a myriad of methods to deal with enemies up in their face, including the ability to spontaneously become a melee character without losing any of their investment in archery. Wanting melee characters to get options to drag down a flier isn't entitlement, it's game balance.Is this our world of entitlement now? Players expect to build a melee-specialist with a sense that they're entitled to have every encounter lay down and die before their awesome melee might?
Fie!
YOU build the character, YOU build a backup plan for when an encounter is not ideal for you, YOU prepare yourself, and YOU expect that there will be some encounters that will not be perfect for your specialization.
In return, the GM probably should have plenty of encounters that DO fall easy victim to your specialization so you can play what you built and enjoy your moments in the spotlight.
But in no way should a player feel like the GM is obligated to cater every encounter to your specialty. You're definitely not entitled to that.
And when it happens that you get an encounter that isn't well-suited to your specialty, then you use your backup plan and you EXPECT it won't match your specialized DPR because it obviously won't and it shouldn't - it's just a backup plan.
That is a houserule. That bow is part of the weapon, just like the handle of the sword is part of the entire sword. I am not saying the entire bow could not have been sundered, but attacking the string is definitely a called shot.
That is a houserule. That bow is part of the weapon, just like the handle of the sword is part of the entire sword. I am not saying the entire bow could not have been sundered, but attacking the string is definitely a called shot.
If you're standing there facing two opponents, one with a longbow that has a 5-foot long bowstring and one with a dagger with a 6-inch blade, why is it harder to HIT the bowstring (called shot) than it is to HIT the dagger (normal sunder attempt)? The bowstring is literally 10x bigger, 10x more of a target, but you want it to be a called shot to hit it - do you demand a called shot to sunder that dagger that should be 10x harder to hit?
Are the objections coming from players who favor archer characters?
I don't see the problem. If nothing else, it balances the EXACT problem this thread is about: that melee martials can be neutralized in many encounters with with simple things like flying or just staying out of their reach, while archer martials cannot be neutralized by simple things like that, and not even by getting into an adjacent square to hit them when they provoke. Advantage archers. In fact, UNFAIR advantage archers.
Here's a simple solution to level that playing field using core rules and a bit of a loose, but probably justifiable, interpretation of them, and everyone is crying "Foul! We want archers to remain supreme! You can't cut our strings!"
Smacks of hidden motives, or at least of hidden biases.
That is a houserule. That bow is part of the weapon, just like the handle of the sword is part of the entire sword. I am not saying the entire bow could not have been sundered, but attacking the string is definitely a called shot.If you're standing there facing two opponents, one with a longbow that has a 5-foot long bowstring and one with a dagger with a 6-inch blade, why is it harder to HIT the bowstring (called shot) than it is to HIT the dagger (normal sunder attempt)? The bowstring is literally 10x bigger, 10x more of a target, but you want it to be a called shot to hit it - do you demand a called shot to sunder that dagger that should be 10x harder to hit?
Assuming equal people it's just as hard to hit the bow as it is the dagger. Now is it easier to break a bow then the dagger? Yes, even without targeting the bowstring.
Smacks of hidden motives, or at least of hidden biases.Such insinuations are beneath you.
I disagree.
I myself have frequently found I argue more ardently in favor of what I like. I think everyone does. I admit I do it. I try to catch myself when I'm doing it and avoid it, particularly in Rules Questions forums, though I'm not always successful. I sometimes suspect that not everybody tries to catch and/or avoid it as much as I try to. Since I'm not always successful, I assume that means others are not always successful. I have a high opinion of my self-awareness and think I'm pretty good at it so I naturally (and arrogantly) assume that many others are less successful than I am.
None of which is beneath anyone.
The hardness of a weapon for the purpose of sunder is defined by the weakest part of the weapon.
The hit points are determined by what kind of weapon it is.
A bow has hardness 0, hp 5 for sundering, with the normal +2/+10 for each +1 enhancement bonus.
I was prepared to argue against Blake but this actually proves he's right by RAW. For the purposes of sundering a weapon is only as strong as its weakest part, which for the bow would be the string. Time to start investing in mithral bow strings!
I was prepared to argue against Blake but this actually proves he's right by RAW.
You're just plain wrong. Wrong I say!
What's that? You said I'm right? How the heck did that happen, anyway? No matter, I'll take it. Carry on...
Frankly, I didn't even know that FAQ existed. I'm glad they created a FAQ answer that makes sense. Once in a while, the Devs and I agree. Who knew?
Going back to the previous arguments relating to armor straps, in plate armor these things would be protected by the armor itself. A bow string has no such protection, being no more or less vulnerable than the rest of the bow.
You can't sunder a bowstring because it's generally covered by the bow. Trying to sunder a bowstring is like trying to "aim for the heart."
A weapon may be only as durable as its weakest part, but the weakest part of a normal projectile weapon is hardness 5, hit points 5, as given on Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.
I was prepared to argue against Blake but this actually proves he's right by RAW. For the purposes of sundering a weapon is only as strong as its weakest part, which for the bow would be the string. Time to start investing in mithral bow strings!The hardness of a weapon for the purpose of sunder is defined by the weakest part of the weapon.
The hit points are determined by what kind of weapon it is.
A bow has hardness 0, hp 5 for sundering, with the normal +2/+10 for each +1 enhancement bonus.
"Table 7–12 on page 175 of the Core Rulebook lists common weapon hardness and hit points. The table assumes the weapon in question is made of leather, wood, and/or steel, as appropriate."
So, no. The rulebook already assumes normal materials. That FAQ lists some particular circumstances under which you might use the adamantine head's hardness over the wooden haft. Similarly, I can imagine there are circumstances where you would use the bowstring's hardness instead of the bow's.
But sundering isn't one of them. Trying to cut a bowstring on a bow in use or simply lying about would be an example of an "ineffective weapon."
I was prepared to argue against Blake but this actually proves he's right by RAW. For the purposes of sundering a weapon is only as strong as its weakest part, which for the bow would be the string. Time to start investing in mithral bow strings!The hardness of a weapon for the purpose of sunder is defined by the weakest part of the weapon.
The hit points are determined by what kind of weapon it is.
A bow has hardness 0, hp 5 for sundering, with the normal +2/+10 for each +1 enhancement bonus.
"Table 7–12 on page 175 of the Core Rulebook lists common weapon hardness and hit points. The table assumes the weapon in question is made of leather, wood, and/or steel, as appropriate."
So, no. The rulebook already assumes normal materials. That FAQ lists some particular circumstances under which you might use the adamantine head's hardness over the wooden haft. Similarly, I can imagine there are circumstances where you would use the bowstring's hardness instead of the bow's.
But sundering isn't one of them. Trying to cut a bowstring on a bow in use or simply lying about would be an example of an "ineffective weapon."
Call it what you want, but their example of an ineffective weapon is one that is incapable of doing the job, a club trying to cut a rope. A sharp blade trying to cut a piece of string is exactly the opposite of their example and is very very far from being ineffective.
Bowstrings are under a great deal of stress. I've actually strung a bow with a slightly frayed bowstring (because I was a broke teenager at the time and bowstrings weren't free). I fired a few dozen arrows at some targets and set my bow down on the table by the firing line while I went to retrieve the last batch of arrows from the target, and just lying there the string snapped where it was frayed. And it was barely frayed.
My point being, it doesn't take much damage to a bowstring to sever it under the stress it sustains while it's strung. I could probably do it with a good strike with a pair of toenail clippers. But even if you left the bowstring lying, unstrung, on the ground and hit it with a bladed weapon, you'd definitely cut it easily. Strung, well, that would be a snap...
|
That is fair, although if I had played with you I would have actually asked the player not to do that.For me, I'm not a fan of GM decisions that are unreasonable. I include abject devotion to game mechanics that don't make sense.
I would not have wanted this conversation:
Player: I sunder the bowstring.
Me: It has hardness 5 and HP 5.
Player: What? Rope is much thicker and has hardness 0 and 2 HP.
Me: Yeah, but THIS string is attached to a wooden bow.
Player: I am not sundering the wooden part, I'm sundering the string part.
Me: You can't.
Player: Why not?
Me: Because game mechanics.
Player: But it doesn't make sense. I can see the string, can't I?
Me: Yep.
Player: I can reach the string, can't I?
Me: Yep.
Player: So I cut the string.
Me: No problem. Hardness 5, HP 5.
Player: I'm not sundering the wooden part!
Me: It's attached. That makes it all one thing.
Player: So If I tie a rope to a steel grappling hook, does that mean the entire rope now has hardness 10, HP 30 because it's attached to the steel?
Me: Well, no, because there is no "Rope with Grappnel" on the Object Hardness table, so we just use the separate parts.
Player: Why not use separate parts for the bow and bowstring?
Me: Because "projectile weapon" is on the chart. I have to use it. It's the law.
Player: So, cutting a bowstring is EXACTLY as hard as hacking a heavy crossbow in half?
Me: Yep, exactly.
Player: And bowstrings are at least 5x harder to cut than ordinary rope?
Me: Yes. At least.
Player: So, can I use a club to cut the bowstring?
Me: Actually, yes. Since it is attached to the wooden bow, it can be broken exactly like the wooden bow, so a club will snap a bowstring like a twig, even though the same club cannot cut rope (which is 5x easier to cut).
Player: You know that none of this makes sense, right?
Me: I'm a GM. RAW is RAW. My hands are tied; I cannot disobey the RAW. I AM THE RAW!Actually, I don't even see it as a house rule. It's just applying core rules in a...
EDUT: Never mind, someone brought it up already and I missed it
My point being, it doesn't take much damage to a bowstring to sever it under the stress it sustains while it's strung. I could probably do it with a good strike with a pair of toenail clippers. But even if you left the bowstring lying, unstrung, on the ground and hit it with a bladed weapon, you'd definitely cut it easily. Strung, well, that would be a snap...
That's not exactly what we are talking about. The thing, even if it were lying on the ground, you'd have to hit it. And hitting the string of a bow is different than hitting a string just sitting there. If you hit the bow with a bladed weapon, you would most likely just hit the wooden part, because it's thicken than the string. If you aimed directly for the string, you would probably be striking with less force than if you just whaled on the bow.
Now, compare that to when you are wielding a bow. Good luck hitting a string which is hiding behind a bow probably 16x its thickness while moving. And if you happen to hit the string, it may not offer any resistance.
We are basically talking about the same situation as if someone wanted to take a rapier and aim at the armpits of a suit of armor to avoid the armor's bonus. It's something that could happen, but the mechanics of how it is handled in-game are somewhat abstracted
So, sure, you can destroy a bowstring you are holding with a pair of nailclippers. But if you strike at a bow during combat to damage it, I expect you to to play by the rules.
Let me also note that I have 20+ years playing a LARP where it is legal to strike a bow to "destroy" it. In all that time, I'm not sure I have ever seen the string struck. It's just a very, very unlikely target.
Now, compare that to when you are wielding a bow. Good luck hitting a string which is hiding behind a bow probably 16x its thickness while moving. And if you happen to hit the string, it may not offer any resistance.
Maybe. I guess if I had to it with a bladed weapon, I'd slice upward above the hand at a bit of an angle (the angle being from my right to my left, so the tip of the blade is behind the bow), letting my blade run upward along the side (and slightly inside) of the wooden bow until it hit the string. Easy enough to envision, harder to do I'm sure - but we're talking about trained swordsmen vs. trained archers; I guess that's why one has a CMB for sundering and the other has a CMD to avoid it. May the best combatant win.
Let me also note that I have 20+ years playing a LARP where it is legal to strike a bow to "destroy" it. In all that time, I'm not sure I have ever seen the string struck. It's just a very, very unlikely target.
Why would you?
If hitting the bow destroys it, why hit that elusive string? I agree, getting to the string is a little harder (but not much harder). It's the 10 damage vs. 1 damage that would make me try the harder attack, especially if I'm a DEX-based character with a light edged weapon. But LARPing where one hit anywhere on the bow disables it means the wood IS EXACTLY as fragile as the string but easier to reach. Yeah, with rules like that, you wouldn't ever see anyone try the harder attack.
I bet you $50 that if you change your LARP rules to say that small edged weapons cannot destroy bows at all unless they strike the string, well, then you would see lots of bowstring sunders in your LARPing.
I remain unconvinced.
I bet you $50 that if you change your LARP rules to say that small edged weapons cannot destroy bows at all unless they strike the string, well, then you would see lots of bowstring sunders in your LARPing.
I remain unconvinced.
I think he is trying to say it would not happen enough to make it work trying because the difficulty is too great.
So it might be attempted a few times at first, but seeing how impractical it is, it would stop being tried.
I have core rulebook stats for hardness and HP of rope (Hardness 0, HP 1 per half inch of thickness).
Seems unrealistic. Find a rope, tie it round a light fitting or similar so it dangles in the middle of the room. Now hit it as hard as you can with the sharpest blade you own. I'm betting it flexes but doesn't break.
I have core rulebook stats for hardness and HP of rope (Hardness 0, HP 1 per half inch of thickness).Seems unrealistic. Find a rope, tie it round a light fitting or similar so it dangles in the middle of the room. Now hit it as hard as you can with the sharpest blade you own. I'm betting it flexes but doesn't break.
You're probably right in that scenario (but it could be very reasonable for a taut rope tied at both ends, or lying unattended on a hard surface) - though in your scenario I'd give an INT check to hack with a mild downward motion which would sever that rope with little or no problem, unless your blade is dull or your arm is weak - or a WIS check to simply grab the rope, or step on it, before swinging your blade.
Take it up with the Devs. They wrote the rule, not me. Maybe they didn't want to enlarge the table with multiple hardnesses and HP values, or extensive examples of ineffective weapons, or physics lessons about striking away from the anchor rather than toward it or tangent to it. Heck, maybe they just never figured anyone would want to hack a harmless rope that isn't even doing anything or being used for anything.
None of which is relevant to the initial discussion of whether bows have an unfair advantage over melee weapons, and whether the RAW accommodates some options to mitigate that - loose interpretation or otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last time I had a player try to use his bow while threatened (he had the Point Blank Master feat), he found out that bowstrings are hardness 0 with 1 HP and anybody can sunder a bowstring with any slashing weapon even with minimum damage.This is a house rule, yes? There aren't specific rules for spare bowstrings and so forth?The string on a bow is a string (a thin rope). I have core rulebook stats for hardness and HP of rope (Hardness 0, HP 1 per half inch of thickness). It is an attended object. I have core rulebook rules for sundering attended objects.
No, that wasn't a house rule.
I did have to figure out a time frame for stringing a bow. I used to teach archery to boy scouts so I have some experience with that, and those bows were super weak (20 and 30 pounds of draw). I ruled that with a string in hand, it's a full-round action that provokes. We have core rulebook rules for getting things out of backpacks (etc.) so that's how long it took to restring it.
So the only house rule was the action to string a bow.
And, frankly, that house rule was made to HELP the player. Otherwise I would have used the core rulebook rule that his bow would get the Broken condition until repaired. Technically, the string is broken, but since the string is not a separate object, that means the bow is broken. Very tedious, and not very practical. So the house rule made it easier for him to get back into the fight, or at least the next fight.
There is no such thing as a bow string, there is only a bow. The bow string is a called shot house rule.
Wait, I'm confused about why the move+standard matters? How is that any different from a creature with greater than 30ft move on the ground?
I'm also doubly as confused because a great deal (almost all) of monsters listed by you have multiple natural attacks and most definitely do suffer from losing their full attack.... so.... huh?
If a dragonne or chimera is kiting me with breath weapons I've succesfully contributed to the fight by locking out their claw/claw/bite routine and drawing fire away from squishies - and i'm still getting a charge on them every round. I have made the fight equivalent to a grounded fight, where the dragonne or chimera could still employ a kiting technique if it wanted to.