3E/4E Critical Hit Fail

[Roy]

Roy, if you were the DM couldn't you just give out more treasure to replace what gets broken? That seems an easier and more amicable way to deal with a sundering PCs.

As for the NPCs, they tend to be fighting for their lives, not fighting to advance in power. Plus is there's no Magic Walmart then they aren' t necessarily losing power by breaking stuff they won't use. So I don't see how breaking shit is out of character for NPCs.

It tends to be a dick move for a DM though for metagame reasons, unless he explains ahead of time that shit will be broken and sets up the economy and treasure to allow for that.

Defending Sundertardation = Fail. The moment I begin to encourage PC actions not mattering is the moment they start breaking their own stuff like a spoiled brat because they didn't like it to 'reroll' treasure, similar to some dumbass kid breaking his Nintendo DS in the checkout line because he suddenly decided he didn't like the color, or some other bullshit reason. Or, more likely they just say 'fuck your shit' and go play another campaign or Smash Brothers. And they would be completely justified in doing so.

PC actions do matter. If you break your own stuff, you get less stuff. As for NPCs, if they aren't advancing in power (in some way objectionable to the PCs) they wouldn't be in conflict, so that statement is full of Fail.

Lastly 'there is no Magic Walmart' is an inaccurate assumption. There is at least one by RAW. You must be this tall (level 9+) to enter but aside from that... Then you get into specifics of different worlds which offer more options. Not to mention that you have to have a magic shop just to be playing the Same Game, unless you are a caster in which case you take CWI and maybe 1 or 2 others and be your own damn proprietor and customer. So any statement that begins with 'there are no magic shops' is made of Fail on many levels. Not to mention if there are not any, that's all the more reason to not be a Sundertard, as the only way you can get your must have upgrades is to play the DM's wank game... and to begin, you must not be breaking your own stuff so you can either hope the right loot spawns, or you'll have to fuck around with Magic Shopping Party for a few hours of real time to trade some random junk magic item for something you actually care about.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Funnily enough, sundering is actually a good tactic in 4E for PCs to pursue because breaking NPC items doesn't actually leave you poorer after the fight is over.

... at least, that's how it would be if 4th Edition didn't take the mechanic out.

These dumbfucks couldn't find their balls even if Ender and Beavis were taking turns repeatedly kicking them there.

[Roy]

Funnily enough, sundering is actually a good tactic in 4E for PCs to pursue because breaking NPC items doesn't actually leave you poorer after the fight is over.

... at least, that's how it would be if 4th Edition didn't take the mechanic out.

These dumbfucks couldn't find their balls even if Ender and Beavis were taking turns repeatedly kicking them there.

However, NPC items don't actually do anything either. Well, maybe the same as mundane items, but mostly it's just Giant Frog. Not to mention you'd probably have to grind on the items for several rounds to actually break them, as such is the 4.Fail way.

[Amra]

I was going to say much the same. In *theory* it'd be a useful tactic in 4E, but actually how the hell can you tell? What exactly would the game effect be of sundering a Fire Giant's sword, even if you could? Nobody knows...

[Roy]

It'd probably just regard it as part of the hit box on the sprite, resulting in normal coin toss to hit and piddly shit damage to the mob.

[Murtak]

Defending Sundertardation = Fail. The moment I begin to encourage PC actions not mattering is the moment they start breaking their own stuff like a spoiled brat because they didn't like it to 'reroll' treasure.

Not all of us have the misfortune to play with idiots and assholes. Even assuming you aren't just assuming this and have actually tested your group's asshole factor it doesn't have to hold true for the rest of us. I don't think your stereotypical paladin is wrong for destroying his opponent's unholy sword, nor should he be punished for acting both sensibly (in the context of the game world) and in character.

[Roy]

Defending Sundertardation = Fail. The moment I begin to encourage PC actions not mattering is the moment they start breaking their own stuff like a spoiled brat because they didn't like it to 'reroll' treasure.

Not all of us have the misfortune to play with idiots and assholes. Even assuming you aren't just assuming this and have actually tested your group's asshole factor it doesn't have to hold true for the rest of us. I don't think your stereotypical paladin is wrong for destroying his opponent's unholy sword, nor should he be punished for acting both sensibly (in the context of the game world) and in character.

Irrelevant to the fact you are actively encouraging idiotic and asshole behavior, as opposed to setting up filters to block out the possibility. Remember, players will do whatever you encourage them to, and if that means they can be irresponsible and get away with it, then that's exactly what they will do.

As for the unholy sword, he gets the sell value from his church, who then destroys it. He's not screwed over and can still do his thing. Them being a Sundertard hurts them and not him. Alternately, either he or his church does that purification ritual thing to make it a holy weapon instead. Then either he has his shinies in an acceptable form, or he has his cash and the church has a new relic.

In closing, assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

[Murtak]

As for the unholy sword, he gets the sell value from his church, who then destroys it. He's not screwed over and can still do his thing. Them being a Sundertard hurts them and not him.

So you propose instead of the character destroying the sword outright he risks it falling into the wrong hands by keeping it for however long it takes him to get to a temple, only to have them destroy it?

By destroying it at once
- no evil person can get their hands on it
- no good person can be tempted to evilness by using it
- it can not be lost if he is killed/kidnapped/whatever
- no potentially corrupt person at the temple can use it

Logically, as long as it is feasible to destroy it it should be destroyed right away.

[Amra]

Whut? A Paladin and his allies are getting beaten on with a Weapon of Darkness Intrinsicate and he *refrains* from breaking it because he won't get the sale value if he does? Um.

Seriously, if his church are into rewarding their Paladins for destroying Evil items (and why not?) then what are they going to say when he produces the broken pieces of the Unholy Avenger, "Sorry, but we don't believe you unless we see it working"?!? If the DM is remotely sane, they'd reward him just as well for having broken it as for handing it over for them to break on his behalf.

If players want to destroy shit because it's in line with their character's convictions, then there's no problem letting them get on with it. It doesn't mean that you have to replace the shit they broke with other shit, but if the shit they're finding in the first place is shit their characters ought not to countenance existing, then you should expect that shit to get broken.

Destroying shit "because they want something different", on the other hand, means that they are assholes. Maybe it's because I play with grown-ups that I never see that sort of behaviour, I don't know, but it pretty well smacks of "We have no immersion whatsoever in either your game world or our characters", which is another problem entirely.

[Murtak]

By the way, how do you solve the problem of your players jumping off a cliff any time they do not like the loot / encounter / their last roll, essentially "rerolling the campaign"?

[Roy]

So to continue with the smiting of Sundertard Dumbfucks that have no business existing on the Den...

Murtak, at best all you're doing is making a good case for Good is Dumb by attempting to prove they cannot be competent. You're preaching to the choir. Your argument is self defeating in that even if you 'win' by proving that you still lose. Alternately you just lose outright. Either way, try again.

Amra: In battle he refrains from breaking it because it's about as difficult to break their face, and that also rules out possibilities like 'Unholy Sword #2'. Not to mention NPC beatsticks aren't a threat anyways.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Now, they can break stuff as much as they want. But there's no saving throw for stupidity, so they are willfully and knowingly choosing to permanently gimp themselves. If they choose, despite having the information that self gimping is what they want to do, and they don't get shouted down by the others who heard everything then the group is choosing to promote self gimping, and will have a harder time accordingly. Generally though it never gets this far, because anyone smart enough to be let in the door will get it long before the illustration reaches that level. The hurk durk dumbfucks remain in their place outside, serving no purpose except to amuse their betters.

Lastly, that's an easy one Murtak. There Is No Saving Throw for Stupidity. If someone actually wants to burn cash bringing them back after that, then they can try again. Otherwise they can make a new character, and if they try it again they get the Folding Chair of Salvation for wasting everyone's time with dumbfuckery.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Amra: In battle he refrains from breaking it because it's about as difficult to break their face, and that also rules out possibilities like 'Unholy Sword #2'. Not to mention NPC beatsticks aren't a threat anyways.

If someone has an noticeably evil magic sword, it seems reasonable to assume that they'd take a more than a couple thwacks to down. At least six hit dice, CON bonus, and whatever magical defenses they have active. With an adamantine weapon, you can bypass the weapon's hardness. The weapon will probably have between 15 and 45 hit points, assuming a longsword with an enhancement bonus between +1 and +4. This seems easier to destroy.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Aren't there numerous divination spells that could be used to clarify the matter?

[mean_liar]

If the player thinks the character should destroy it because IT'S EVIL and that seems appropriate, then they should do it and the GM should feed them a few more perks to make up for the GP loss.

If the character sells the Unholy sword for cash and the GM is okay with it, let them keep the cash and have the church advise them that they were wise to bring such an item to them so that they can redeem it.

I fail to see how merely running a good game requires pedantic adherence to the strange relationship DnD3e constructs between magic goodies and real wealth.

[Murtak]

So to continue with the smiting of Sundertard Dumbfucks that have no business existing on the Den...

Murtak, at best all you're doing is making a good case for Good is Dumb by attempting to prove they cannot be competent. You're preaching to the choir. Your argument is self defeating in that even if you 'win' by proving that you still lose. Alternately you just lose outright. Either way, try again.

Would you mind stopping to be a raging asshole and littering your every sentence with belittling statements and outright insults? Show me a goddamn argument, you inbred spineless motherfucker, or shut your useless face and quit your trolling.

Seriously, get the fuck over your personal dislike of me and try to actually read what I wrote. I disagree with PhoneLobster on about 99% of his posts, but I don't feel the need to hurl random insults his way.

In battle he refrains from breaking it because it's about as difficult to break their face, and that also rules out possibilities like 'Unholy Sword #2'. Not to mention NPC beatsticks aren't a threat anyways.

Things you missed:
- A credible percentage of opponents get useless without weapons.
- Not everyone with an unholy sword is in fact a fighter.
- Not everyone has quickdraw and a second identical unholy sword.
- Swords can in fact be broken after the fight is over.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Oh yeah, and what if our stereotypical lying misled scoundrel paladin only thought he was lying when actually he was only misled into believing the sword was not evil. This is getting utterly ridiculous. As to your questions:
- The clerics can divine whether the paladin speaks the truth and whether the sword was once evil.
- Unholy swords are evil. Negative energy isn't. Paladins get Detect Evil. More to the point, an unholy sword drains levels from good bearers. Picking it up will cause the paladin to lose spell slots.

Lastly, that's an easy one Murtak. There Is No Saving Throw for Stupidity. If someone actually wants to burn cash bringing them back after that, then they can try again. Otherwise they can make a new character, and if they try it again they get the Folding Chair of Salvation for wasting everyone's time with dumbfuckery.

So in other words, you deal with it the same way me (and others) propose to deal with other out-of-character stupidity: namely out of game.

Now would you mind answering these:

So you propose instead of the character destroying the sword outright he risks it falling into the wrong hands by keeping it for however long it takes him to get to a temple, only to have them destroy it?

By destroying it at once
- no evil person can get their hands on it
- no good person can be tempted to evilness by using it
- it can not be lost if he is killed/kidnapped/whatever
- no potentially corrupt person at the temple can use it

Logically, as long as it is feasible to destroy it it should be destroyed right away.

Oh, and another one: If the paladin is an idiot for destroying the sword, why does the fucking church destroy it for him? Are all of them idiots?

Edit: fixed quote tags

[Username17]

Roy, I do not, and never will understand your singleminded devotion to your frankly incomprehensible stance on wealth by level.

We all know WBL doesn't work.
Further, we all understand that the printed words that essentially make any collection of loot or lack thereof on your part meaningless are intellectually insulting.
And we also acknowledge that the rules allowing you to transfer whatever pile of wealth you happen to have into magic items that make you a rockstar are stupid and broken.
Finally, we all accept that here are a number of wealth accumulation tricks which break the RAW in half like a pencil on a train track.

This is all established fact. And to the best of my knowledge completely accepted.

---

So why the fuckity fuck do you keep gong off about how it is badwrong for anyone to do anything except:

• Eliminate the rule that gives you compensatory wealth if you don't end up with a much wealth as you were supposed to.
• Ban all the wealth accumulation tricks that render looting of virtually any kind futile.
• Leave the rest of the D&D economy alone despite its glaring and obvious failure.

Seriously, what the fuck is that? It's not RAW and it's not good, so why do you blast anyone who doesn't do things that way? What is your angle?

As it happens, sundering is usually a bad strategy, because the vast majority of enemies you care about don't really care that much if they have or don't have any particular weapon. But you aren't making that argument. You're making an argument predicated on a set of woefully incomplete partial fixes to the D&D economy that are frankly no less insulting than the ones right out of the book. So while I would agree with the standalone statement "Improved Sunder is a shitty feat and you should not take it" - your argument is actually full of shit and I'm embarrassed for you when you make it.

-Username17

[Roy]

Amra: In battle he refrains from breaking it because it's about as difficult to break their face, and that also rules out possibilities like 'Unholy Sword #2'. Not to mention NPC beatsticks aren't a threat anyways.

If someone has an noticeably evil magic sword, it seems reasonable to assume that they'd take a more than a couple thwacks to down. At least six hit dice, CON bonus, and whatever magical defenses they have active. With an adamantine weapon, you can bypass the weapon's hardness. The weapon will probably have between 15 and 45 hit points, assuming a longsword with an enhancement bonus between +1 and +4. This seems easier to destroy.

Ok, some 6 HD beatstick. Ok, since Sundertards actually exist in this world, their weapon is made of adamantine. No ifs, ands, or buts. That gives it a hardness of 22-30 and a HP of 30-70, at the minimum. I say at the minimum because the listed base of 20 assumes steel and adamantine has a third more. Then you add the 10 per +1 from there. This ensures you cannot ignore hardness, as 22 is not 'less than 20'. For that matter, 20 isn't less than 20, so even an ordinary adamantine longsword is immune to that. And if it's something other than a longsword, it will likely have more. So the best case scenario is you need 52 damage in one hit to be a Sundertard, and if you can't do at least 23 you can't even try. Meanwhile, you need 46 damage from 1 or more hits to take out the beatstick in question, as 6d10+12 = 45 HP, and they need to be at -1 or lower to be taken out. Even if for some reason they did not have an adamantine weapon, you're still looking at 30 damage to break your own stuff while leaving them alone vs 46 damage to just take them out. Just hit them again, or get someone else to. Not a problem. Of course assuming some level 6 beatstick has an evil weapon is a bit silly, given that the minimum possible for that would be like +1 Unholy... and you don't get 18k at level 6 even as a PC. It's more likely they'll be higher level, and have a tougher weapon. Same thing applies. Except now 'enemy beatsticks aren't a threat' is even more applicable due to the simple beauty of the Wizard declaring that he casts Glitterdust on the enemy beatsticks followed by his bored exclamation that he got them all.

Also, their level of available magic protection ranges from basically nil (no ability to cast it, low cash) to minor or maybe even moderate if they're leeching enough.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Aren't there numerous divination spells that could be used to clarify the matter?

Imperfectly, and with the ability to be fooled. While we're on the subject, how would you even carry a broken sword? An intact sword can be sheathed and bagged up, then you call it a day. A broken sword may not be magical anymore, but it's still sharp and jagged. So the obligatory extradimensional storage is right out, and normal storage would be a pain. Literally.

[Roy]

If the player thinks the character should destroy it because IT'S EVIL and that seems appropriate, then they should do it and the GM should feed them a few more perks to make up for the GP loss.

If the character sells the Unholy sword for cash and the GM is okay with it, let them keep the cash and have the church advise them that they were wise to bring such an item to them so that they can redeem it.

I fail to see how merely running a good game requires pedantic adherence to the strange relationship DnD3e constructs between magic goodies and real wealth.

It doesn't. Murtak is trying to pretend it does by making good = self gimping. If you get your obligatory cash by selling it to your own church instead of some random magic shop, then the flavor text works for you instead of screwing you. After all, them breaking it doesn't hurt you. And if they, or you instead redeem it that's a new Holy sword for you, or as a church relic.

If however they just smash it, they've chosen to gimp themselves and will suffer the consequences of their own actions accordingly, as there's no saving throw for stupidity. And either the Den has rotted far faster than I predicted, or people are just arguing with me to troll for the lulz as far too many people are defending the indefensible that is Sundertardation.

[Roy]

Continuing with the smiting of Fail ninjas.

So to continue with the smiting of Sundertard Dumbfucks that have no business existing on the Den...

Murtak, at best all you're doing is making a good case for Good is Dumb by attempting to prove they cannot be competent. You're preaching to the choir. Your argument is self defeating in that even if you 'win' by proving that you still lose. Alternately you just lose outright. Either way, try again.

Would you mind stopping to be a raging asshole and littering your every sentence with belittling statements and outright insults? Show me a goddamn argument, you inbred spineless motherfucker, or shut your useless face and quit your trolling.

Obvious Dumbfuck is Obvious.

To break down your opening Fail:

Putting idiots in their place is a duty. It does not evoke 'rage' or any other emotional response. Smacking down idiots is no different than killing insects - sometimes you do it just because, often you do it by pure accident without even realizing it, and you will happily nuke millions of them because their presence proved slightly bothersome to you. But in terms of reaction, it's barely a blip on the radar on a large scale and is completely inconsequential on any lesser scope.

Taking snark as insulting = Fail. Doing so on the Den, where snark is Common is triply so.

Whining about insulting while throwing random words together to try to inform an insult = Hypocrite Fail.

Seriously, get the fuck over your personal dislike of me and try to actually read what I wrote. I disagree with PhoneLobster on about 99% of his posts, but I don't feel the need to hurl random insults his way.

As already stated, you're just a nameless idiot to keep in check, until such time as you cease to be an idiot. Which in this case, requires you to stop defending Sundertards. You are too small to provoke reactions such as 'dislike' except in general, grand terms such as 'I dislike idiots'.

In battle he refrains from breaking it because it's about as difficult to break their face, and that also rules out possibilities like 'Unholy Sword #2'. Not to mention NPC beatsticks aren't a threat anyways.

Things you missed:
- A credible percentage of opponents get useless without weapons.
- Not everyone with an unholy sword is in fact a fighter.
- Not everyone has quickdraw and a second identical unholy sword.
- Swords can in fact be broken after the fight is over.

Let's see... Enemy casters, humanoid or not don't give a fuck about their weapons. Enemy beatsticks of the non humanoid variety you literally can't Sundertard without breaking their face (and hands and so forth) because they're auto attacking with claw/claw/bite routines or something. That leaves humanoid beatsticks, who are the most laughable enemies on the field. Full stop. They're also Monty Hall, in that you get a truly obscene reward relative to effort required... unless of course you go Sundertarding it up and ruin that. So unless you define credible as something other than what it actually means, or are counting non credible opponents as valid examples, you Fail.

You'd get a little further if you attempted to use non weapons as an example, but then the chances that they are evil items drops dramatically, and you open the floor wide to a bunch of enemies spamming Sundertard Fail on you... since it takes very little to break anything that isn't a weapon or shield. Thus, one group of Barb 2 mooks later and your character is permanently ruined. So that would further annihilate your own points, as that stepping further made you hit a land mine. Oops.

It doesn't matter if they're a Fighter or not. If they're relying on weapons to auto attack with, you can pretty much just ignore them. As long as they have bad Will saves (and most do) they still get auto owned by Glitterdust.

They only need to have a comparable weapon. Since NPCs are getting most of their weapon stats from things like GMW, this isn't even that hard. Unholy is not a very good property to begin with, so it's not hard at all to one up it.

Breaking it after the fight is over eliminates any and all concern about the guy using it against you, which means you're just being a douchebag to YOURSELF.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Oh yeah, and what if our stereotypical lying misled scoundrel paladin only thought he was lying when actually he was only misled into believing the sword was not evil. This is getting utterly ridiculous. As to your questions:

Obvious Dumbfuck is Obvious. Those are separate possibilities. He wouldn't lie if he were true to his faith, but he might not be, he might not know, and he might be confused.

- The clerics can divine whether the paladin speaks the truth and whether the sword was once evil.
- Unholy swords are evil. Negative energy isn't. Paladins get Detect Evil. More to the point, an unholy sword drains levels from good bearers. Picking it up will cause the paladin to lose spell slots.

If he's lying, Detect Lies and similar are easily fooled. If he's telling the truth but is wrong divinations work better but still can fail or be tricked without too much difficulty.

If he breaks the sword out of the owner's hands, he doesn't get to Detect Evil, unless he spends 3 rounds of combat doing so, at which point the fight is already over. Out of combat, he might be able to do that. Of course, it could be a sword with an evil (but temporary) spell on it, similar to how you can make anyone detect as evil by casting something like Wrack on them. So Paladin boy is still very fallible despite the lying fluff to the contrary, and any coherent world is going to take this into account.

Lastly, that's an easy one Murtak. There Is No Saving Throw for Stupidity. If someone actually wants to burn cash bringing them back after that, then they can try again. Otherwise they can make a new character, and if they try it again they get the Folding Chair of Salvation for wasting everyone's time with dumbfuckery.

So in other words, you deal with it the same way me (and others) propose to deal with other out-of-character stupidity: namely out of game.

I'd say them not getting revived is an in game decision.

Continuing on with the smites.

Now would you mind answering these:

So you propose instead of the character destroying the sword outright he risks it falling into the wrong hands by keeping it for however long it takes him to get to a temple, only to have them destroy it?

By destroying it at once
- no evil person can get their hands on it
- no good person can be tempted to evilness by using it
- it can not be lost if he is killed/kidnapped/whatever
- no potentially corrupt person at the temple can use it

Logically, as long as it is feasible to destroy it it should be destroyed right away.

Oh, and another one: If the paladin is an idiot for destroying the sword, why does the fucking church destroy it for him? Are all of them idiots?

Edit: fixed quote tags

Presumably the church would instead do that Sanctify thing to make it a Holy weapon. I only included the possibility of them breaking it for completeness. But yes, they would be idiots for doing so. Just that their idiocy hurts them and not the Paladin, so at least he's ok.

Now, as for the other bits...

If he can't trust his own church or his own ability to get it to a church, he sanctifies the damn thing himself, as stated. Then he has his own holy weapon. Maybe it will even turn into a Holy Avenger if it was strong enough. Regardless of who sanctifies it, that makes good stronger and evil weaker... which is a better deal than just doing the latter even if you completely ignore the Sundertard Fail.

Other good people would be more concerned about instantly fucking dying and turning into a Wight or at least being weakened by the weapon. Not using it themselves.

Fun fact - if you die from negative levels, you turn into a Wight at the next sundown. And while it makes sense that Unholy swords inflict negative levels on Good users, Holy swords do exactly the same thing to Evil users. So you could seriously create a plague of undead with a Holy Avenger.

Edit: That took way too many tries to fix. Fucking quote tags.

[Crissa]

What's with all this sunder stuff and criticals?

What does that have to do with anything? And why are we talking about a Den thread?

Lastly, where does it say breaking a sword makes it nonmagical, or not able to be divined as magic?

-Crissa

[Avoraciopoctules]

Ok, some 6 HD beatstick. Ok, since Sundertards actually exist in this world, their weapon is made of adamantine. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I disagree. If you are facing an enemy with an adamantine weapon, the situation changes. You now are encouraged to do something else. If everyone uses adamantine weapons, you still benefit, since adamantine should be easier to get for other purposes if you want it.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Aren't there numerous divination spells that could be used to clarify the matter?

Imperfectly, and with the ability to be fooled. While we're on the subject, how would you even carry a broken sword? An intact sword can be sheathed and bagged up, then you call it a day. A broken sword may not be magical anymore, but it's still sharp and jagged. So the obligatory extradimensional storage is right out, and normal storage would be a pain. Literally.

I'd probably just tie it together with cord and put it in a leather satchel. Alternatively, just put the shards in a wooden case, then stick the case into the extradimensional storage space. Alternatively, get an extradimensional storage space connected to a compartment in a chest or wagon.

[Lich-Loved]

Ok, some 6 HD beatstick. Ok, since Sundertards actually exist in this world, their weapon is made of adamantine. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Are you saying that if the possibility to have a weapon sundered exists, that everyone in the world will carry un-sunderable weapons? Surely you can see where that would lead.

[Roy]

Roy, I do not, and never will understand your singleminded devotion to your frankly incomprehensible stance on wealth by level.

Seriously, what the fuck is that? It's not RAW and it's not good, so why do you blast anyone who doesn't do things that way? What is your angle?

Sundertards are idiots. Idiots are to be kept in check so that their idiocy cannot spread. They are also to be put down hard wherever they are found to make an example of them. Skipped a bunch of stuff because while interesting, it is irrelevant.

As it happens, sundering is usually a bad strategy, because the vast majority of enemies you care about don't really care that much if they have or don't have any particular weapon. But you aren't making that argument. You're making an argument predicated on a set of woefully incomplete partial fixes to the D&D economy that are frankly no less insulting than the ones right out of the book. So while I would agree with the standalone statement "Improved Sunder is a shitty feat and you should not take it" - your argument is actually full of shit and I'm embarrassed for you when you make it.

-Username17

O rly? I mentioned Sundertards, and I mentioned things similar to them like rules that break equipment, Game Disjunction (which for all practical purposes breaks equipment, you don't give a fuck about MW and mundane gear) and so forth.

So what the fuckity fuck are YOU talking about?

[Avoraciopoctules]

Ok, some 6 HD beatstick. Ok, since Sundertards actually exist in this world, their weapon is made of adamantine. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Are you saying that if the possibility to have a weapon sundered exists, that everyone in the world will carry un-sunderable weapons? Surely you can see where that would lead.

Personally, I see it as a positive thing. By mentioning the possibility that you'd consider breaking enemy weapons in the certain situations, you dramatically increase the resources of civilization, causing advanced mining and metalworking facilities to pop into existence and dramatically increase the amount of high-quality metal on the market.

[Roy]

Continuing with the ninjas. It's not Fail this time though.

What's with all this sunder stuff and criticals?

What does that have to do with anything? And why are we talking about a Den thread?

Lastly, where does it say breaking a sword makes it nonmagical, or not able to be divined as magic?

-Crissa

I dunno what's up with the criticals. The Sundertard stuff came up when someone asked if anyone used the natural 1 = lose stuff when you fail a save vs a blasting spell or something rule as a corollary to natural 1 = bad stuff happens with attacks. They came out of the woodworks and ran into my preemptive smite.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'talking about a Den thread'.

To the last bit...

Damaged Objects

A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.

Damaging Magic Items

A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.

Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

[Roy]

Ok, some 6 HD beatstick. Ok, since Sundertards actually exist in this world, their weapon is made of adamantine. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I disagree. If you are facing an enemy with an adamantine weapon, the situation changes. You now are encouraged to do something else. If everyone uses adamantine weapons, you still benefit, since adamantine should be easier to get for other purposes if you want it.

If Sundertards exist at all, there is absolutely no reason why every weapon of +2 equivilent or better would not be made of adamantine (and similar measures taken for other gear). It's called protecting your investment and ensuring others have confidence in the longevity of your products. Particularly when your customer base can easily just fucking kill you, and kill your whole family and your little dog too if they believe they've been jipped by say... gear being low enough quality to be easily broken by Sundertards. It isn't cost efficient to do it for +1s unless you plan future upgrades, and most normal weapons would be made of steel. But then, when dealing with low level mooks vs low level mooks you encounter the 'easier to break their face' bit far more since the sword has like 10 hardness and 20 HP and they have about 10 HP... maybe.

In any case, your point just proves my own. Sundertards cannot exist in any non stupid way, the execution will always be made of Fail, thus it is best to just disregard its existence.

The church is rewarding him for turning it in. There is absolutely no proof that broken sword is anything other than a broken sword because the magic is gone. Sure he wouldn't lie if he's on the straight and narrow, but what if he isn't? What if he just thought it was an Unholy sword and it was actually unaligned, or the tool of some Duskblade channeling Vampiric Touch or whatever?

Aren't there numerous divination spells that could be used to clarify the matter?

Imperfectly, and with the ability to be fooled. While we're on the subject, how would you even carry a broken sword? An intact sword can be sheathed and bagged up, then you call it a day. A broken sword may not be magical anymore, but it's still sharp and jagged. So the obligatory extradimensional storage is right out, and normal storage would be a pain. Literally.

I'd probably just tie it together with cord and put it in a leather satchel. Alternatively, just put the shards in a wooden case, then stick the case into the extradimensional storage space. Alternatively, get an extradimensional storage space connected to a compartment in a chest or wagon.

Ok, that works. Assuming you're carrying a damn box around, which means you have to be planning for this sort of thing. And just like suicide, you tend to be pretty good at talking yourself out of it if you stop to think about it. Such is the nature of stupidity. It can only self perpetuate via willful ignorance. Moment you start thinking it falls apart.