Fixing Sunder

[TarlSS]

We all know Sunder is rarely used because even though it's balanced, it's something of a case of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

This is primarily due to the fact that it plays havoc with treasure values per level. How about this:

"The cost to repair magical arms and armor equals the repair cost of a masterwork item of the same type."

Arms and armor being weapons of course. I don't think there's really a huge issue with wands, rings or the like. Staves and rods are also an exception here, because they don't really function as melee weapons. Exceptions might be made for items like the Rod of Lordly Might or something.

This means that sundering serves as more of a status condition, rather than a permanent, "Screw j00" to the unlucky fighter. It still hurts, since you are spending a couple hundred for that platemail, but it's not really crippling anymore.

Of course, there are some flavour issues here, but you can deal with those on a seperate basis depending on the nature of magic in your point of view.

What do you think? I think it makes sundering more of a viable option for DMs and players in a regular game, instead of serving as some kind of metagame tool of permanently rebalancing a party.

[Neeek]

Actually, sunder's main problem is disarming is generally easier, and there are *far* too many things that are unsunderable.

If you could slice off a dragon's claws, you'd be taking great strides towards making sunder useful.

[Brobdingnagian]

Nightwalker.

'Nuff said.

[Catharz]

Sunder and disarm are basically like disintigrate and [/i]sleep.[/i] The difference is that, in this case, both have the same targeting restrictions.

Doing as Neeek suggests would be awesome, as it basically means that you disarm humanoids and sunder everything else. Then again, if you're cutting off the dragon's claws why not just remove the black knight's arm?

[Nihlin]

1175468660[/unixtime]]
Doing as Neeek suggests would be awesome, as it basically means that you disarm humanoids and sunder everything else. Then again, if you're cutting off the dragon's claws why not just remove the black knight's arm?

I'm sure you could cook up a justification. Off the top of my head, claws and such have minimal blood vessels compared to limbs, and an animal typically suffers less damage in having its claws clipped - or even cut off at the base - relative to the harm it would suffer in losing the entire digit. This fails badly for slam attacks, and seems problematic for bite attacks, but it's a start.

Maybe you're not cutting off the claws and teeth, but rather just disabling the attack. Even constructs and undead have moving parts and joints that could be jammed up or damaged beyond proper use. Claws get the tips cut off, blunting but not severing them entirely, teeth get cracked, limbs used for slams get twisted or sprained, and so on.

Anyway, if you dig the idea of using the sunder option to temporarily or permanently take away natural attacks, I'll bet you can always find a way to narrate it sensibly - just state clearly that regular attacks hurt the monster (more specifically, the monster's HP) but never the monster's weapons, and vice versa for sunder attacks.

[tzor]

Sundering claws? You've just made me wax nostalgic for the old 1E “sharpness” property which was like vorpal only it worked on a random body limb. The problem with sundering is that in general there is no real good reason for someone to use it. PCs more or less want the nasty weapon the enemy is wielding. (One major exception would be the paladin fighting the vile villain who is more than likely wielding a vile weapon that the paladin would probably want destroyed anyway.) NPCs are more interested in preserving their own selves and actually winning the battle than merely reducing the magic weapon supply of the enemy.

Now villains with adamantine weapons have a perfect excuse because having paid for the privilege they are justified in using it as often as possible even when it’s not in their best interests.

Anyway back on topic. In the old days of 1E sharpness my old RPI gaming group had the vile (and yes this was exceptionally vile even for 1E) M16 of sharpness. The argument was that while the bullet would not “sever” a limb, the damage caused would effectively incapacitate that limb. One could argue the same for sundering natural attacks; you smash a monster’s jaws, or break its bones or something like that.

[TarlSS]

While it's true those are issues from a player perspective, I can see a few times where sundering a weapon/claw is more effective than dealing damage.

Breaking a weapon is often much more immediately effective than dealing HP damage-
It's the same philosphy beyond using magic to debilitate rather than damage. It's why glitterdust and hold person are better than fireball or melf's acid arrow.
Notably, you can reduce the amount of damage the person does in a single turn to your party, rather than waiting multiple turns for damage to accumulate into death. It adds to strategy.

As for DMs, breaking things just really adds another tool to the arsenal. This way you can use some really nasty creatures like rustmonsters and nightwalkers without being -too- nasty. Sometimes you want to break weapons because that's part of the vision. Usually treasure adjustment doesn't fall into that.

[Endovior]

The trick about disarming is, your foe can often recover the disarmed weapon, so instead of depriving him of it, you're really just foe-juggling (and probably forcing an AoO as he bends over to pick the thing up, which you can use to disarm him again, if you're clever).

When you sunder, on the other hand, it's permanent so far as this combat goes (barring, perhaps, a few rare and complicated exceptions that are all examples of 'doing things that you really shouldn't be doing in combat').

As such, disarming is a sneaky trick that (if you're good at it) can let you juggle a foe for the duration of the combat, while sundering is a sneaky trick that (if it works) seriously weakens the foe.

[Endovior]

Also, come to think of it, shouldn't this be in the "In My Humble Opinion" forum?

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
Why yes it should.
[/TGFBS]

[Iaimeki]

The reason sunder doesn't get used much is twofold. First, a lot of monsters don't have weapons, or the weapons they have don't matter (casters). Second, players are greedy.

Sundering weapons is actually easier than disarming weapons, in most cases. (There tend to be more ways to increase disarm defense checks than sunder defense checks, locked gauntlets being the most notorious example.) Sundering armor is hard, to the point of not being worth it. Sundering other items is harder than disarming them, so it's rarely worthwhile.

[Leress]

I thought you can't sunder worn armor.

[PhoneLobster]

One of my favourite subjects, as of last time I looked into it you can't sunder worn armour, for inexplicable reasons (but you can sunder worn OTHER junk)

But you can DISARM worn armour, if you grapple and pin your target first.

Unless you manage to wrangle a "poorly secured or easily cut away" from your DM on the armour straps or something.

And unless they are wearing spiked gauntlets, which makes them immune to having anything taken from them.

Now where sunder, and disarm REALLY breaks is when you try and use it on things that aren't weapons, armour or shields.

Most fighters can pretty much destroy your hat of smartness by looking at it. Its AC is low and it has zilch hit points.

Someone with BAB and a mind to do it can pretty quickly ensure you're standing there in only your armour and clutching your weapon alone while surrounded by the remains of your other junk.

[Brobdingnagian]

If I'm surrounded by my junk, I've probably passed out and/or died.

[Endovior]

Not necessarily.

For example, you have a stupid Wizard who has allowed a Fighter to close on him. The Fighter COULD directly attack the Wizard and do HP damage... but this is a sunder fighter, so he'll instead sunder the Wizard's spell component pouch, scroll case, and staff of doom with three iterative attacks, leaving the Wizard with far fewer options and more then likely greatly diminishing the threat the Wizard poses. The Wizard COULD scrabble around on the ground grasping for his fallen components, but that would provoke more attacks of opportunity. Other choice targets include holy symbols, alchemical items, potion bottles, wands, and the odd Wondrous Item of obvious combat utility. Obviously, this becomes much more powerful with ranged sunder; the exact results of such are left to the reader's imagination.

Considering this carefully, this becomes an interesting, if much overlooked, power of the Fighter-types. A sunder fighter can strip any caster that needs stuff to cast of their casting abilities with a few well placed attacks; Clerics are especially vulnerable to this.

[cthulhu]

Is there anything stopping a wizard from having say, 30 component pouches?

[TarlSS]

Ah god, anti sunder cheese!

[Brobdingnagian]

Clerics aren't especially vulnerable; they just make their entire armour, shield, weapons, and everything else they can manage out of a crapload of holy symbols.

Also, I wasn't talking about junk I wear, I was talking about my junk.

[Cielingcat]

1175591083[/unixtime]]Is there anything stopping a wizard from having say, 30 component pouches?

Nope.

This reminds me of the anti-Wizard arguments on WotC, only you guys aren't idiots.

[Neeek]

1175620063[/unixtime]]Clerics aren't especially vulnerable; they just make their entire armour, shield, weapons, and everything else they can manage out of a crapload of holy symbols.

I've always preferred tattooing it to my character's forehead.

[Catharz]

1175650847[/unixtime]]

1175620063[/unixtime]]Clerics aren't especially vulnerable; they just make their entire armour, shield, weapons, and everything else they can manage out of a crapload of holy symbols.

I've always preferred tattooing it to my character's forehead.

That's a bad idea if your DM likes to sunder holy symbols D:

[Endovior]

These are interesting counters, but in practice, how many of you actually do this, in play, on a regular basis?

[Cielingcat]

1175656559[/unixtime]]These are interesting counters, but in practice, how many of you actually do this, in play, on a regular basis?

I never do, since my group think spell components are stupid.

[Brobdingnagian]

Well, spell components are stupid, but that's irrelevant, I suppose.

And I've only played a Cleric once. I'm not to big a fan, since the campaign started at level seven and I completely outplayed my entire group right from the word get-go. Possibly because they were composed of:

A core fighter.

A sorcerer who only picked blasting spells.

A rogue who liked to melee and discarded all sense of tactics once initiative was rolled; he also had this nasty habit of threatening people who were much stronger than him and making me solve the issue.

But the one time I did play that Cleric, I had holy symbols tattooed on my palms, chest, back, and ass, my armour was constructed of welded holy symbols, my shield was one big-ass holy symbol, and all my weapons had at least three holy symbols engraven on them somewhere. Also, any undead I raised (and there were a lot) had holy symbols engraven on to them.

[shau]

These are interesting counters, but in practice, how many of you actually do this, in play, on a regular basis?

All my arcane casters have multiple pouches. My current one has six. After you see the sunder spell component trick once, you only have yourself to blame if it happens to you.