having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.
Why not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.Why not?
Cost. You can only afford so many +5 weapons, even with a level 20's WBL. Never mind the not-weapon things to buy (+5 armor at the very least).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
getting rid of mandatory items is the majority of options.I'm pretty sure "mandatory" items have been part of this family of games since 3e at the latest. As long as a thing can make your number bigger and does not preclude something else that would make a bigger change or change a more important number, people are going to consider that "mandatory".
So unless we make magic items useless (which would be bad) there are going to be mandatory ones. We can reduce the number (PF2 went from 6 to 3), but we can't and should not make it 0. Personally I'd rather do away with the stat boosting items (just give another intrinsic bonus or two) and keep the +n weapons.
But, a compromise- what if "Potency" was still a magic item (so it costs a treasure slot) but rather than a rune inscribed on a weapon, it's a rune inscribed on your person, which applies to every weapon you pick up up to the limit of weapon quality.
First, the bolded, and then your compromise, then my compromise:
1. Suppose the game does end up with an automatic "apply this potency rune to literally everything you pick up that can have a potency rune applied to it", such as what your compromise suggests. Alternatively, suppose the math of the game is tweaked to the point that there ends up not being any such thing as a potency rune (which ultimately results in the same thing). Property runes like Frost or Vorpal would still exist. Wouldn't they would still be useful, while not being necessary? I disagree that it's as binary as "mandatory-or-useless". Like I was saying on the last page, I think the ideal is having magic effects be "take-it-or-leave-it", where they're useful enough to be worthwhile, but not so required that the game mandates them (because if the game does require certain bonuses by certain levels, why not just keep all that "under the hood" and already accounted for in the math?).
2. For me, this isn't a compromise so much as it's almost what I'd do, anyway.
Specifically, at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, all characters get +1 to AC, saves, and attack rolls, as well as an additional weapon damage die per plus (no matter how many weapons they may be using). This ignores item quality requirements (i.e., a level 20 character picking up any random standard-quality weapon still applies a +5 bonus to attack and five additional damage dice). Reason being, high-level NPCs don't have to worry about item quality; and if their weapons are assumed to be similarly high-quality, doesn't that make those weapons the same sort of windfall as if every high-level NPC had +5 gear? Also, item quality only affects hardness and how many property runes it can hold. (This would also necessitate some changes to Bracers of Armor, Mage Armor, Magic Fang, and Magic Weapon, possibly obviating them altogether.)
But I do have one question about your compromise: do you see NPCs as "not getting access to this body-derived all-weapon potency rune" (and if so, what are they doing to stay relevant?), or "also having this rune and at a level-appropriate amount, and this rune's effects are just assumed to be already accounted for in the NPC's attack and damage statistics"?
3. In the spirit of "compromises that possibly reach further across the aisle than asked for" (I don't entirely agree with your compromise but it shows a significant stride towards the middle; thank you), here's mine:
Have either all characters get level-appropriate bonuses to AC, saves, attack, and damage (with the math being spelled out for PCs and simply assumed in the final statistics for NPCs not built like PCs), or tweak the math to where it's not necessary in the first place (my preference). Potency runes are no longer a thing.
But also create a new property rune (and maybe even call it "Potency"). It applies a +1 to (if etched on armor) AC and saves, or to attack and an extra damage die (if on a weapon). This rune is only ever a +1, and does not upgrade as the game progresses. Tweak as necessary to make this rune competitive with other runes.
Repeating that, because it's important: This Potency property rune (or just Potency rune, since that wouldn't be a necessary distinction) should neither be worthless nor a shoe-in. Players with a weapon of a quality that can only hold one rune should face a choice between applying Flaming or Potency and have either choice be just as worthwhile as the other.
And it is possible to tweak a game to where boosting accuracy isn't always a given. In other threads, I've mentioned Iron Kingdoms Full Metal Fantasy. That game has magitech weapons where Accuracy is a rune that can be applied to a weapon's runeplate, but at the cost of putting other runes instead, and Accuracy is only ever one +1 boost to attack.
Another example is SWSE. In the core rules, a Jedi who makes his own lightsaber can attune to it and get a +1 to hit. When the KotOR supplement came out, it established that "+1 to hit" was just the result of attuning to a lightsaber with a standard crystal. Alternatively, you could use another crystal that might give you electricity damage or a bonus to rolls made to deflect blasters (though you could still only ever use one crystal per saber). My Jedi's lightsaber ended up using a crystal that made it a stunsaber.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as a thing can make your number bigger and does not preclude something else that would make a bigger change or change a more important number, people are going to consider that "mandatory".
So unless we make magic items useless (which would be bad) there are going to be mandatory ones.
Some possibilities other than "mandatory" or "useless":
1 Powerful but rare. If they're unavailable, they can't be mandatory. You can do fine without them, but if you have them, you're more powerful than normal for your level.
2 Bonuses to attack and damage cannot be attached to weapons. Magic weapons can only give you special abilities. You get the numbers from your class abilities.
3 Better balance between 'special abilities' and 'bigger numbers'. Would you choose a sword that gave you +1 to hit over one that gave you the ability to fly whenever you held it in your hand? A sword that gave you +1d6 damage per hit over one that let you unleash a cone of lightning? Armor that gave you +1 AC over one that let you teleport short distances as a Reaction?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as a thing can make your number bigger and does not preclude something else that would make a bigger change or change a more important number, people are going to consider that "mandatory".
So unless we make magic items useless (which would be bad) there are going to be mandatory ones.
Some possibilities other than "mandatory" or "useless":
1 Powerful but rare. If they're unavailable, they can't be mandatory. You can do fine without them, but if you have them, you're more powerful than normal for your level.
2 Bonuses to attack and damage cannot be attached to weapons. Magic weapons can only give you special abilities. You get the numbers from your class abilities.
3 Better balance between 'special abilities' and 'bigger numbers'. Would you choose a sword that gave you +1 to hit over one that gave you the ability to fly whenever you held it in your hand? A sword that gave you +1d6 damage per hit over one that let you unleash a cone of lightning? Armor that gave you +1 AC over one that let you teleport short distances as a Reaction?
That's exactly what I mean. If +X bonuses must absolutely remain, then they better be very small and weaker than other bonuses, to offset the fact they're good for any situation, and they better put you ABOVE the curve, not be accounted for by the game. if you're investing in it, it better make a difference. But the point of the thing is not making boring +X bonuses obviously the best choice for any occasion because they're generic and only differ in magnitude, so you'll always be chasing that +1 and not looking at anything else.
As long as a thing can make your number bigger and does not preclude something else that would make a bigger change or change a more important number, people are going to consider that "mandatory".
So unless we make magic items useless (which would be bad) there are going to be mandatory ones.
Some possibilities other than "mandatory" or "useless":
1 Powerful but rare. If they're unavailable, they can't be mandatory. You can do fine without them, but if you have them, you're more powerful than normal for your level.
2 Bonuses to attack and damage cannot be attached to weapons. Magic weapons can only give you special abilities. You get the numbers from your class abilities.
3 Better balance between 'special abilities' and 'bigger numbers'. Would you choose a sword that gave you +1 to hit over one that gave you the ability to fly whenever you held it in your hand? A sword that gave you +1d6 damage per hit over one that let you unleash a cone of lightning? Armor that gave you +1 AC over one that let you teleport short distances as a Reaction?
Well, if magic items are powerful but rare, this also means players have no idea what to expect when they get higher level, and it also means that enemies will be unpredictable, and they already are as it is (unless the GM gives you forewarning ahead of time). A more authentic adventuring experience, perhaps, but this also means that players will fight more amongst themselves to acquire these powerful items, which probably isn't a good thing. You're also going to have players that have no idea what to expect in the endgame, so they won't know what to build as a character until they actually reach that level.
The problem with tying the attack and damage to classes instead of items is that this doesn't solve the expected damage paradigm, and instead shifts it to now be in conjunction with the Tim/Jim paradigm, where players now have to play certain classes because the game now expects that amount of damage, which only those said classes can meet for expectations.
It's not just +1 to hit, it's also +1 dice. Same for armor, it's not just +1 AC, it's also +1 to all Saves (and we all know how bad Will Saves are to fail regardless of edition). On top of that, free flight with an item is extremely overpowered. The Cone of Lightning is just more of the competing same for damage (except they will probably get a Reflex Save, which doesn't scale, which means the effect will lose usefulness over time). Teleporting short distances as a Reaction could be neat, but you'd burn through Resonance fast, and we don't know what the trigger for it is. When you're hit with a melee attack? What about a ranged attack, or if you're affected by a spell that targets an area? These things also determine how useful the item is in comparison.
Another issue is that in the endgame, you don't have to choose between Potency or Properties, you'll have both more often than not, because they don't compete for the same limitations (which are rune slots). Each weapon having 5 Potency slots and 3 Property slots when of the highest quality means that you won't have Potency runes in Property slots and vice-versa. In PF1, they "kind of" competed, in that they were under the same benefits, but Potency had a limit of being 5, which meant you could still (safely) apply 5 slots worth of properties without issue. Here, the properties are even less available (which seems silly), and aren't even stronger to compensate.
You want them to be more desirable and cool? Make them stronger. Effects which are powerful are universally cooler as a result. Maybe make the elemental effects instead deal extra weapon dice too, so all you're missing is a +1 to hit in exchange for affecting certain weaknesses and applying persistent damage on criticals. Maybe allow armors to grant permanent flight on investment, which can also give you an item bonus to Acrobatics checks. Maybe a weapon that's invisible in the eyes of your enemies, meaning they must sense your weapon (or otherwise see invisible things) in order to properly defend themselves from it (i.e. not be flat-footed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic items need to be cool. They need to be able to make even your legendary fighter or barbarian be more able to hit and do more damage than a warrior without one. (it doesn't however have to be 5x damage for a legendary martial using a magic weapon)
I'm fine with Potency effects being split up so Potency doesn't also grant Accuracy. But as a point to all this discussion, if you have a +1 sword with a weakened potency rune that only does extra damage, the weapon still does at least +1 to hit and +1d damage. It has to be an expert quality weapon which gives it a +1 to hit, and the potency rune grants the +1d damage. Splitting potency will only really change things with respect to accuracy somewhere around the +3 to +5 range, in theory. But it could certainly be an option that might help it stop being a presumption.
All this discussion of stripping the game of the ability for magic to be able to make a weapon a 'better' weapon. Limiting magic to make a weapon a better something sidestepping weapon, is sad. Firebrand is apparently ok, because it is cool, because it adds fire damage. (and comes with a historical name, FireBrand or FlameTongue) But doing extra slashing damage simply doesn't make the cut for some people. To me, they both have a very real and understandable place in fantasy stories.
Make sure fighters can do extra damage to keep up with many of the monsters of their level can do with similar weapons. Leave it low enough that magic weapons help them do even more damage, so they can remain special.
You can have the innate bonus never stack with the magic or quality bonuses, which would leave you having to have really expensive super powerful weapons to make a high level fighter even care to use it. Or you can cut back the number of tiers of magic from the current 5 to 2 or 3 and allow it to stack with the innate bonuses. You could make them a little more limited, perhaps having standard potency runes tied to a damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) for instance. The first tier could be available relatively early, but have the second tier a much higher level treasure.
I'm all for stopping the assumption that every character should have to have a potency rune on their weapon and armor as a mandate. It is basically a factor of by the game designers trying to plan ahead to insure such characters don't break the intended game, should the character have the magic, ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy of creating the very need to have it.
What if in addition to just basic level, we tracked loose adjusted valued for Offense, Defense, and Stamina. Quickly I can imagine someone getting boosts towards to hit and/or damage, spell DCs could boost the offense rating. Boosts to AC and Saves would increase Defense, and boosts to healing abilities and HP (temporary or not) are things that might boost their Stamina ratings. These adjusted ratings would be how you compare the party against a adventure and the various challenges the party would be expected to face, rather that just using only 'Level'. Monsters can even be rated by level, but include their Offense, Defense, and Stamina adjustments for them.
If the party isn't Optimizing their magic collection, just because of party style, or because the GM hasn't made the optimal choices available, or any other reason, you don't suddenly have to worry about the math being broken one way or the other. If you have a party that has been given a +2 Slashing Potency sword even at first level, which the party's leader/fighter uses. The DM can keep an eye out to include foes that have boosts in either Defense or Stamina, knowing the party has a significant advantage on its Offense, or look at higher level monsters with disadvantages listed for Offense, as another example.
It sounded like they were trying to make monsters be able to range some in the types of foes, so some would be easy to damage but take a while to kill... or hard to hit, but easy to kill once you get a hit.
So I really hope not to see any kind of innate bonus progression that goes to +5 as anything but an optional rule for non-magic humans settings.
I do hope to see some sort of workable innate damage progression that would be similar to the range I saw for monsters using weapons, which looked to be somewhere around +3. I personally hope it somehow includes skill with the weapon in some manner, in addition to character level. [(level + skill mod) / 7 perhaps?]
As we make potency runes less of a base, don't require potency runes for any property rune, as a potency rune simply becomes one of the potentially more common property runes. If we need some form of primary enchantment gate cost that potency runes were acting as, simply have a Expert/Master/Legendary weapon have to have a base enchantment applied to it to enable it to gain its 'slots'. It could be a simple, non-transferable base enchantment enabling it to accept its enchantments.
Magic items need to be cool. They need to be able to make even your legendary fighter or barbarian be more able to hit and do more damage than a warrior without one. (it doesn't however have to be 5x damage for a legendary martial using a magic weapon)
I'm fine with Potency effects being split up so Potency doesn't also grant Accuracy. But as a point to all this discussion, if you have a +1 sword with a weakened potency rune that only does extra damage, the weapon still does at least +1 to hit and +1d damage. It has to be an expert quality weapon which gives it a +1 to hit, and the potency rune grants the +1d damage. Splitting potency will only really change things with respect to accuracy somewhere around the +3 to +5 range, in theory. But it could certainly be an option that might help it stop being a presumption.
All this discussion of stripping the game of the ability for magic to be able to make a weapon a 'better' weapon. Limiting magic to make a weapon a better something sidestepping weapon, is sad. Firebrand is apparently ok, because it is cool, because it adds fire damage. (and comes with a historical name, FireBrand or FlameTongue) But doing extra slashing damage simply doesn't make the cut for some people. To me, they both have a very real and understandable place in fantasy stories.
Make sure fighters can do extra damage to keep up with many of the monsters of their level can do with similar weapons. Leave it low enough that magic weapons help them do even more damage, so they can remain special.
You can have the innate bonus never stack with the magic or quality bonuses, which would leave you having to have really expensive super powerful weapons to make a high level fighter even care to use it. Or you can cut back the number of tiers of magic from the current 5 to 2 or 3 and allow it to stack with the innate bonuses. You could make them a little more limited, perhaps having standard potency runes tied to a damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) for instance. The...
I still don't really like the idea of Weapon Potency in general, and I would still prefer it just not being there, but I have to give credit where credit is due. If they are going to keep it, this is probably the best idea I've seen so far.
Cost. You can only afford so many +5 weapons, even with a level 20's WBL. Never mind the not-weapon things to buy (+5 armor at the very least).having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.Why not?
How many weapons are you going to buy? How many can you *carry*? I had envisioned a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, and maybe a second melee weapon. Okay, and if you're a rogue, maybe a half-dozen daggers - but do they all have to be +5? Is an extra +1 or +2 really that important, especially for a secondary or tertiary weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this discussion of stripping the game of the ability for magic to be able to make a weapon a 'better' weapon. Limiting magic to make a weapon a better something sidestepping weapon, is sad. Firebrand is apparently ok, because it is cool, because it adds fire damage. (and comes with a historical name, FireBrand or FlameTongue) But doing extra slashing damage simply doesn't make the cut for some people. To me, they both have a very real and understandable place in fantasy stories.
Make sure fighters can do extra damage to keep up with many of the monsters of their level can do with similar weapons. Leave it low enough that magic weapons help them do even more damage, so they can remain special.
This seems like it's right along with my compromise of having potency as its own thing gone and only leaving a single Potency property rune that only puts an extra weapon damage die on the total. You're right that a magic slashing weapon being extra slashing has a place alongside extra fire damage.
But there's only so much narrative space you can explore with that concept. A not-magic weapon becoming a magic weapon is a remarkable transition, worth the time it takes the story to describe it. A Really, Really, Really Magic Weapon becoming a Really, Really, Really, Really Magic Weapon? Who gives a flip?
The other thing is that if we're going to say that Potency has just as much narrative place as Flaming, it must then follow that Potency should be just as easily dismissible as Flaming. I.e., if you can imagine a high-level Fighter who nevertheless is deciding to go without Flaming on any of his weapons, then it should be just as easy to imagine that high-level Fighter without a single plus to any of his weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many weapons are you going to buy? How many can you *carry*? I had envisioned a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, and maybe a second melee weapon. Okay, and if you're a rogue, maybe a half-dozen daggers - but do they all have to be +5? Is an extra +1 or +2 really that important, especially for a secondary or tertiary weapon?Cost. You can only afford so many +5 weapons, even with a level 20's WBL. Never mind the not-weapon things to buy (+5 armor at the very least).having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.Why not?
That's the whole issue man. +1 and +2 in PF2e are WAY different from PF1e. If before you lost +1 and +2 in DPR, now you lose 2 whole dice. In fact, it defeats the sole purposed of having back up weapons at all. If you're changing your weapon to bypass DR but in the process you're losing way more damage than if you went and used your main weapon anyway, then what's the point? There is none.
The wealth constraints make it impossible to have more than one relevant weapon at the intended level. If the dice were changed to character strength on the other hand, then the whole issue would be put to rest, along with NPC/PC disparity, removal of mandatory items to fit the intended math, world consistency as a whole and those corner cases of stories in which characters lose their gear or even the simple fact that if you're disarmed and can't get to your weapon, you might as well leave the battle, which wouldn't be too heroic to say the least.
How many weapons are you going to buy? How many can you *carry*? I had envisioned a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, and maybe a second melee weapon. Okay, and if you're a rogue, maybe a half-dozen daggers - but do they all have to be +5? Is an extra +1 or +2 really that important, especially for a secondary or tertiary weapon?Cost. You can only afford so many +5 weapons, even with a level 20's WBL. Never mind the not-weapon things to buy (+5 armor at the very least).having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.Why not?
My 5E Rogue (that is, a character concept that I'd be using regardless of what game I built her in, 4E, 5E, P1E, Anima Beyond Fantasy) that is specifically me going light on how specced out I make a character uses:
two whips, a rapier, multiple daggers, her claws (she's a Tabaxi Catfolk), a crossbow, and a sling.
That is "bare bones minimum" for me (before getting down to casters, that is). At low levels, where magic enhancements aren't available, she can use them all without falling behind. Her reaching a higher level doesn't change that I still want each and every single one of those options to still be worthwhile.
And as for how many a character can carry, she carries them all just fine. Most of my characters that are specced out with even more gear also stay under their encumbrance limits. The only reason that might be an issue in P2E is because of how Bulk forces weapons to consume unreasonably humongous swaths of an equally unreasonably limited encumbrance. And yes, I have made posts to that effect in other threads.
re: bulk and encumbrance, I suppose it's a matter of how much you're willing to give up for a bit of convenience in figuring out how much you can carry. Personally, I don't like Bulk either. :-)
But as the GM your job is not to "run the antagonists as though they have perfect knowledge of game mechanics, and are trying to win at all costs."Of course the monsters should try to win at all cost. If they don't win, they die, and nobody wants to die.
After all, the monsters are supposed to lose so logic like having sunder be unattractive for the monsters for the same reason it is for the players (i.e. less loot) is totally valid. I mean, there are not currently rules for sunder at all, from what I can tell.Why should monsters bother about loot? Any level 5 NPC deals 2d of damages with mundane weapons (or even his bare hands); and the same damages with a PC's magical weapon. Why should he bother about the weapon of the PCs?
Magical weapons is a PC thing. PCs can't afford to sunder enemies weapon, because they need the loot to be somehow relevant in combat. NPCs don't care, they don't need this to be cool.
Magic Weapons aren't the only thing that matters here, so saying it like nothing else is a factor makes this a disingenuous argument.
Having Gold to purchase items they may want goes poof if they destroy those items. It might be solid tactics for animals and similarly dumbed-down creatures, whom don't care for such things, but smart BBEGs would sparingly do this.
But as the GM your job is not to "run the antagonists as though they have perfect knowledge of game mechanics, and are trying to win at all costs."Of course the monsters should try to win at all cost. If they don't win, they die, and nobody wants to die.
After all, the monsters are supposed to lose so logic like having sunder be unattractive for the monsters for the same reason it is for the players (i.e. less loot) is totally valid. I mean, there are not currently rules for sunder at all, from what I can tell.Why should monsters bother about loot? Any level 5 NPC deals 2d of damages with mundane weapons (or even his bare hands); and the same damages with a PC's magical weapon. Why should he bother about the weapon of the PCs?
Magical weapons is a PC thing. PCs can't afford to sunder enemies weapon, because they need the loot to be somehow relevant in combat. NPCs don't care, they don't need this to be cool.
Magic Weapons aren't the only thing that matters here, so saying it like nothing else is a factor makes this a disingenuous argument.
Having Gold to purchase items they may want goes poof if they destroy those items. It might be solid tactics for animals and similarly dumbed-down creatures, whom don't care for such things, but smart BBEGs would sparingly do this.
That PCs usually worry more about protecting the loot at the cost of an increased risk of being killed probably speaks to the fact that this is a game and not an actual life or death battle for the players.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many weapons are you going to buy? How many can you *carry*? I had envisioned a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, and maybe a second melee weapon. Okay, and if you're a rogue, maybe a half-dozen daggers - but do they all have to be +5? Is an extra +1 or +2 really that important, especially for a secondary or tertiary weapon?Cost. You can only afford so many +5 weapons, even with a level 20's WBL. Never mind the not-weapon things to buy (+5 armor at the very least).having multiple weapons with the runes doesn’t seem practical.Why not?
Resistance can be to Blunt, Slashing, Piercing, based on Alignment, material (Cold Iron, Silver, Adamantine).
If the resistances are to be meaningful, you have to make them enough where it can make sense to switch weapons when facing the creature. If the damage from the magical rune on your primary weapon gives you such a damage boost that it more than makes up for being made of the wrong material, the only time someone will use the special materials is when they specialize in a certain type of creature.
How does adding a potency rune to a weapon reduce expected average damage?
How does adding a potency rune to a weapon reduce expected average damage?
I think you're looking at a comparison of "+2 weapon against resistance 10" and "non-magic weapon which is the right material to overcome resistance", not the exact same weapon with/without the potency rune.
Ah, I see. I think. :-)
Easiest solution is at encounter design: stop assuming characters have stat adding items, design as if they don't, so that the items are an actual bonus rather than a requirement.
That doesn't sound like a complete solution. If we did that and changed nothing else, PCs with magic items would be three or four times as powerful as the encounter design expected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem a "gold is xp" game like Pathfinder (1 or 2) encounters is that it needs to force every character to be gold reliant. It would be grossly unfair if class A needed money to acheive its full potential, while class B did not, and could spend its gold on other, more fun things.
This was a large part of the caster/non caster disparity in PF1. Not only were casters less reliant on items than martials, they also had money-multipiers in the form of item creation feats.
In other games, like HERO system, money is not xp. Items are bought using the same resource (character points) as every other aspect of your character. Items had advantages and disadvantages compared to having the same ability yourself, but it was mainly a concept thing - are you Batman or Superman - up to you as a player! Warhammer Quest is a dungeon boardgame and not quite an RPG, but it is an example that comes to mind of doing the same thing the opposite way - your character improved by spending gold on training, but spending gold on gear was just as viable.
We we are up against a sacred cow here. DnD and Pathfinder has always been about finding and spending loot. To make this meaningful, the loot must actually improve your character. The question is just, to what degree, and how do we make this fair for different classes?
Personally, I am all for minimizing the effect of gold on character abilities.
That's why my argument had nothing to do with mechanics. If intelligent creatures in the world know that a magical weapon is the major source of threat...But as the GM your job is not to "run the antagonists as though they have perfect knowledge of game mechanics, and are trying to win at all costs." After all, the monsters are supposed to lose so logic like having sunder be unattractive for the monsters for the same reason it is for the players (i.e. less loot) is totally valid.
Plus, disarming is really hard now- you need to critically succeed against reflex DC to actually separate someone from their weapon.
The problem here is with the lack of PC/NPC transparency. Intelligent creatures will NOT know that magic weapons are the cause of damage, because it is simply not true. Only in the case of PCs is this true. And PCs are super-rare - only your actual players. Unless the opponent has previously encountered the PCs - or has reports of others who have - this is an entirely alien situation.