Did sunder have any other weaknesses I'm forgetting?

[deuxhero]

I know the big ones are
1: You destroy your own loot
2: You can't sunder natural weapons.

Was there anything else prominent that was an issue with sundering? (I'm making notes for building a sunder focused prc)

[Hirax]

You can't sunder armor being worn by somebody.

[Psyren]

- Corollary to above: put something under your armor or in a compartment and it's safe from sundering
- Can't sunder with piercing
- Smaller weapons take massive penalties

ToB, Binders and Psywars are great at sundering

[Jopustopin]

I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.

[King Atticus]

I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.

+1

I've never bought in to that line of thinking either. A trunk full of broken weapons does not constitute wealth unless the DM is going to buy them from you.

[deuxhero]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with a penalty for using a light weapon, if you are going to sunder just use a two hander.

How is ToB good for sunder? Sunder is a special action, not a target for attended items and can't have manauvers used (i guess another issue).

[Amphetryon]

I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.

Counter-argument: I've known players who would make a sunder-capable character - and inform the DM of it - in order to get better than WBL for the party for a portion of the adventure or more if they know the DM would compensate for destroyed items like that. Even if the WBL issue straightens itself out in a few levels, not all campaigns last long enough for that correction to show itself.

[JaronK]

You forget 3: Most enemies don't use sunderable weapons at all (for example, caster types).

But I do go for the "break your own loot" idea. I mean, if you wasted all your loot some other way (such as on tons of scrolls that you burn through instantly) do you expect the DM to just hand you more loot to make up for it?

JaronK

[Psyren]

I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.

The DMG also specifically states that monster equipment should be part of their treasure calculation too though. (51, 127.) It also suggests that a treasure imbalance can persist "for several levels" before being corrected, so WBL is not a straightjacket and the sunderer can find themselves put out for multiple sessions. Make of that what you will.

[some guy]

You forget 3: Most enemies don't use sunderable weapons at all (for example, caster types).

3.A. However, some material components/foci are sunderable.


I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.


The DMG also specifically states that monster equipment should be part of their treasure calculation too though. (51, 127.) It also suggests that a treasure imbalance can persist "for several levels" before being corrected, so WBL is not a straightjacket and the sunderer can find themselves put out for multiple sessions. Make of that what you will.

Yeah, kinda this. If a player complained to me about the lack of wealth because he/she sundered a bunch of items, "Tough luck." would be my reply. Then after a few sessions, when I'd probably have forgotten the whole sundering deal already and check their wealth, I'd notice it would be lower then recommended, and would try and fix their wealth.

[Yuki Akuma]

How is ToB good for sunder? Sunder is a special action, not a target for attended items and can't have manauvers used (i guess another issue).

There are manoeuvres for ignoring hardness and dealing tons of damage to objects.

[deuxhero]

Which can't be used to sunder attended objects due to RAW.

[Psyren]

Which can't be used to sunder attended objects due to RAW.

Sunder targets the creature. You simply do your damage to the item they're carrying.


Step 1

Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder.

[deuxhero]

Huh, I've been told otherwise (and Stone Dragon's Fury explicitlly allows sundering while others don't), good to know.

[Curmudgeon]

The DMG has a table for wealth by level.
That table is only a guideline, and mainly used for creating characters above 1st level. There's no requirement for DMs to micro-manage loot.
One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items.
What DMs actually do use on an ongoing basis is Table 3–3: Treasure Values per Encounter (page 51). If the DM provides (on average) that value of treasure, they've done their job. If you sunder it, you'll just hurt yourself.

[Safety Sword]

I just want to point out how poor of an argument 1 is. The DMG has a table for wealth by level. If a PC makes a sundering character any DM with half a brain is going to assume some value of equipment will be destroyed and provide additional treasure so that each PC is appropriately equipped for his character level. The challenge rating system assumes that the PC's are appropriately equipped.

When I DM I don't place treasure on the assumption that the PCs will do any certain thing. That's a recipe for disaster!

If you decide you want to break a weapon, that's a choice you make. The bad guys don't give out compensation due to your tactics.

Anyway, I find WBL table great as a guide when making characters above level 1. They certainly aren't strictly adhered to, and frequently characters have widely varying personal wealth in my campaigns. This is usually a function of some characters having more wealth generation options (item crafting and sale, services rendered and let's call it... redistribution of property without prior ownership change :smallamused:).

Edit: Dammit, sneaky Curmudgeon rolled higher initiative...

Again, I don't detail what characters use their wealth on, so in total it usually turns out well enough. Wizards use most of their wealth supporting their casting (new scrolls to learn, etc) whilst others supplement their abilities with better gear. It's actually necessary to have melee characters (Edit: mundane would have probably been a better descriptor) better equipped so that they stay useful for a slightly longer period before the casters crack the game wide open.

[Fax Celestis]

{table=head]Weapon or Shield | Hardness | HP1
Light blade | 10 | 2
One-handed blade | 10 | 5
Two-handed blade | 10 | 10
Light metal-hafted weapon | 10 | 10
One-handed metal-hafted weapon | 10 | 20
Light hafted weapon | 5 | 2
One-handed hafted weapon | 5 | 5
Two-handed hafted weapon | 5 | 10
Projectile weapon | 5 | 5
Armor | special (by material) | armor bonus ×5
Buckler | 10 | 5
Light wooden shield | 5 | 7
Heavy wooden shield | 5 | 15
Light steel shield | 10 | 10
Heavy steel shield | 10 | 20
Tower shield | 5 | 20[/table]
1The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium.

Taken from Smashing an Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#tableCommonArmorWeaponAndShieldHar dnessAndHitPoints).

Say you're facing a third-level halfling rogue wielding a dagger. You are also third level.

Your average third-level halfling rogue, assuming the Elite array, is going to have 3d6+3 HP, or on average 13 HP. His dagger has 1 HP (half of 2 because he's Small), but effectively DR 10/-. Comparable values.

Same third-level halfling rogue, using a chain shirt and the Elite array is going to have 17 Dex (+3 bonus), +4 AC from the shirt, size +1: AC 18.

In comparison, you make opposed attack rolls. You, being a Medium creature with a two-handed weapon OR a weapon good at sundering (don't ask me if there are any that are both, but I don't think so), get a +12 bonus on this attack roll (+4 for size, +4 for two-handed weapon, +4 for Improved Sunder), so it is in essence nearly an automatic hit...assuming you're going for his weapon.

If you're going for something he's carrying, on the other hand (like, perhaps a spell component pouch)...


A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character.

Let's make our halfling rogue into a halfling wizard. Bear with me. A dagger and a spell component pouch are comparable in size, I would imagine, and a dagger for a Small creature is a Diminutive object. Our wizard, still using the Elite array, is down 2 points of Dex (having decided to put them in Int instead because, you know, wizardry), so his unattended object is AC 10 + 4 Size + 2 attendant's Dex mod. Cloth has 0 hardness and 2 HP/inch of thickness, so let's give it the benefit of the doubt and give it 2 HP. You specifically do not get +8 of the bonus you get in the opposed roll:


Step 2

Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.


Sundering a Carried or Worn Object

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC.

You still get Improved Sunder's bonus, but the size mods and two-handed mods? Gone.

If you're this close to the halfling wizard already (AC 10 + 1 Size + 2 Dex; HP 3d4+3, ave. 10), it is easier to just kill him than it is to destroy his spell component pouch. This also precludes the fact that he may have multiple spell component pouches, but he only has one HP pool. Same holds true for the rogue: he can have multiple daggers, but he's only got 13 HP.

"Oh, but higher levels!" you say. I will indicate this:


Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons

Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item’s hit points.

Mr. Rogue up there gains a level and gets a magic dagger. He has 4d6+4 HP (18 HP). His dagger has effectively DR 12/- and 11 HP. 23 HP to disarm him, or 18 HP to kill him, for fairly comparable attack rolls. Sunder is pretty mediocre. Sure, you can drop 3k to make your weapon adamantine to bypass the first 20 hardness, but then you're bypassing other materials like Abyssal bloodiron, flametouched iron, darksteel, blue ice, serren, deep crystal, and thinaun. Even so, you can kill him for 18 damage, or you can disarm him for 11 damage.

http://www.deviantart.com/download/62735168/TEAL_DEER_by_kunika.jpg
It is easier to kill the other guy than it is to break his stuff, which is why sundering is pretty bad.

[deuxhero]

There are weapons with bonus to sunder?

[Fax Celestis]

There are weapons with bonus to sunder?

Well, from the Pathfinder SRD, there's the swordbreaker dagger (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dagger-swordbreaker) and flambard (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/flambard). They provide a +2 each, plus their individual extra features..

[King Atticus]

Adamantine weapons ignore the first 20 points of hardness and the sundering property gives you improved sundering with that weapon +1D6 damage iirc.

[deuxhero]

Well, from the Pathfinder SRD, there's the swordbreaker dagger (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dagger-swordbreaker) and flambard (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/flambard). They provide a +2 each, plus their individual extra features..

Ah, the PF ones. Thought you meant there were ones in 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

Ah, the PF ones. Thought you meant there were ones in 3.5.

There may be. I am kind of rusty when it comes to equipment.

[Safety Sword]

There may be. I am kind of rusty when it comes to equipment.

Well played.

[Diefje]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#shatterspike

Seems like crap though. Big disadvantage is that you can't do it without a weapon. Besides all the "destroy your own loot" stuff, if you make a beastly sunderer, you will very likely run into stuff that will make you lose your weapon. Grapple, disarm, getting sundered first, incorporeal, rust monsters, etc...

Though it doesn't seem to feat heavy, so i suppose you could just slap it onto some build that gets Combat Brute (I believe, the one with Sundering Cleave) anyway. I wouldn't make it the cake, but it can be the icing.

[Psyren]

There may be. I am kind of rusty when it comes to equipment.


Well played.

I lol'ed IRL

[HunterOfJello]

There are weapons with bonus to sunder?

The Goliath Greathammer gives +2 to Sunder attacks. You can find it in MM4 and Ros. Adamantine weapons are also excellent for sundering since they completely ignore hardness from items. If you run around with a Adamantine Goliath Greathammer then you can go around sundering to your heart's content. (There are also some nice enchants for sundering too.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Huh, I've been told otherwise (and Stone Dragon's Fury explicitlly allows sundering while others don't), good to know.


The ToB explicitly states that you can't combine sunder with maneuvers.


In addition, you cannot combine special attacks such as sunder or bull rush with strikes, even if you have feats that make such special attacks more potent. However, some strikes enable you to make special attacks as part of their initiation; see the specifi c maneuver descriptions in Chapter 4 for details.

Stone Dragon's Fury and Exorcism of Steel are the obvious exception to this. Exorcism of Steel seems to be a sundering move itself since it references to the Sundering page of the PHB. You do a sunder attack on an opponent's weapon, and if it's successful they also take a penalty to damage rolls for 1 minute.

[Fax Celestis]

I lol'ed IRL

*bows* :smallamused:

[Gavinfoxx]

Pilum, Dragon 331. Goliath Greathammer, MMIV and Races of Stone. Swordbreaker, Dragon 303.

[darkdragoon]

At best you are adding extra steps to get back the item(s) you break- finding another one, getting it repaired, finding some junk that you sell to buy a similar item etc.

One of the tactical feats has a "sundering cleave" that lets you hit somebody with a regular attack when you break something, but as has been mentioned you're probably off trying to drop their HP to 0 in the first place.

[Big Fau]

Huh, I've been told otherwise (and Stone Dragon's Fury explicitlly allows sundering while others don't), good to know.

But if you use the BG Errata, every maneuver in the Mountain Hammer line (except the 9th) can be used on a Sunder attempt.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

After skimming this thread I don't think anyone has bothered to mention, in order to sunder a magic weapon/shield/item, you need to use a weapon that has an enhancement bonus at least equal to the object you want to sunder. A +1 weapon cannot hurt a +2 shield. A 12th level Cleric with Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment on his equipment can't get it sundered by anyone with less than a +3 weapon.

[Tvtyrant]

Wouldn't the best sunderer be a Druid in Treant form? I thought there was a spell that let you do different damage types with natural weapons, like switching them to slashing or piercing.

[JoeYounger]

After skimming this thread I don't think anyone has bothered to mention, in order to sunder a magic weapon/shield/item, you need to use a weapon that has an enhancement bonus at least equal to the object you want to sunder. A +1 weapon cannot hurt a +2 shield. A 12th level Cleric with Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment on his equipment can't get it sundered by anyone with less than a +3 weapon.

I've never seen that! Wheres that at?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I've never seen that! Wheres that at?

Now that I try to find it, I think it may have been a 3.0 rule that didn't get carried over to 3.5, but the Shatterspike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#shatterspike) still has its original wording.

[RandomLunatic]

Now that I try to find it, I think it may have been a 3.0 rule that didn't get carried over to 3.5, but the Shatterspike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#shatterspike) still has its original wording.

It was a 3.0 rule. Shatterspike was just not updated properly.

[classy one]

Sundering weapons is fun. I am amazed at the amount of people who let metagame issues like loot affect their enjoyment.
I break weapons because I wanted a PC that breaks stuff. Period.

One of my favorite PCs was a psywar who soulbound weapon ACF. So I never worried that my weapon was out of date. He had combat brute, improved sunder, focused sunder, and a soulbound adamantine greatsword and he broke lots of stuff. Since my weapon grew with my level (and my PP) I only had to worry about armor and other nick knacks. Focused sunder combined with an adamantine weapon let me ignore up to 40 hardness.

Now that I think about it I didn't even have to worry too much about armor either since my opponents had no weapons.

It only takes about 4-5 feats to make and you can still be decent in other areas when Sundering is not an option. Most importantly, it's fun to break an opponent's coveted weapon.
"that was a nice weapon you had there, it looks even better lying broken at your feet. Are you gonna cry now?"

[Psyren]

Sundering weapons is fun. I am amazed at the amount of people who let metagame issues like loot affect their enjoyment.
I break weapons because I wanted a PC that breaks stuff. Period.

So long as you break your share of the loot, I have no problems with a sunderer.

[Jopustopin]

You forget 3: Most enemies don't use sunderable weapons at all (for example, caster types).

But I do go for the "break your own loot" idea. I mean, if you wasted all your loot some other way (such as on tons of scrolls that you burn through instantly) do you expect the DM to just hand you more loot to make up for it?

JaronK

Breaking loot is not the same as wasting your loot on scrolls. First of all, it was never your loot. You never actually possessed a +1 longsword so in what sense was it ever yours?



The DMG also specifically states that monster equipment should be part of their treasure calculation too though. (51, 127.) It also suggests that a treasure imbalance can persist "for several levels" before being corrected, so WBL is not a straightjacket and the sunderer can find themselves put out for multiple sessions. Make of that what you will.

On page 51 it talks about the "standard way" to acquire treasure. Clearly if you are sundering the equipment worn by your enemies then you are not acquiring treasure and need a non-standard way to acquire treasure. Since D&D is about having fun a good DM will make sure that you are not being punished for playing your character. On page 51 it also says "Monitor the progress of treasure into the hands of the PCs." Can this be any clearer? It doesn't say "Monitor the progress of intentional treasure that should end up into the hands of PCs." On page 127 it only shows how much the NPC is supposed to be equipped with and makes no mention of how much of that the PC's are supposed to get. You could adorn your NPC with grafts... how much of that do the PC's get?

There is a difference between doing something purposely stupid, like dropping treasure into a lake of lava and sundering your enemies equipment. If you can't see the difference you'll never agree with my argument and I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But know that there is no feat for stupidity but there is an entire game mechanic on sundering.

[Fax Celestis]

grafts

Oh right, you can't sunder those either.

[Knaight]

Sundering weapons is fun. I am amazed at the amount of people who let metagame issues like loot affect their enjoyment.
I break weapons because I wanted a PC that breaks stuff. Period.
Loot is not a metagame issue. The loot exists in the game, and the player characters are breaking the loot in the game, fully aware of it possibly having value (unless they are really, really stupid). The only metagaming in your example is breaking weapons in the game because you wanted a PC who breaks stuff out of the game.

[Gnaeus]

Loot is not a metagame issue. The loot exists in the game, and the player characters are breaking the loot in the game, fully aware of it possibly having value (unless they are really, really stupid). The only metagaming in your example is breaking weapons in the game because you wanted a PC who breaks stuff out of the game.

Exactly. The argument that you can sunder all you want because the DM will make up the treasure is a metagame argument. No PC would think that. The argument that you shouldn't break their sword, because then you can't sell it, makes perfect sense in game.

[Knaight]

Exactly. The argument that you can sunder all you want because the DM will make up the treasure is a metagame argument. No PC would think that. The argument that you shouldn't break their sword, because then you can't sell it, makes perfect sense in game.

More to the point, having characters take actions because the player views the actions as fun instead of for an in character reason is metagaming.

[Curmudgeon]

Now that I try to find it, I think it may have been a 3.0 rule that didn't get carried over to 3.5, but the Shatterspike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#shatterspike) still has its original wording.
It actually was carried over to 3.5, but was revised in the DMG Errata.

[Psyren]

There is a difference between doing something purposely stupid, like dropping treasure into a lake of lava and sundering your enemies equipment. If you can't see the difference you'll never agree with my argument and I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But know that there is no feat for stupidity but there is an entire game mechanic on sundering.

I understand and agree with your argument. But the DM has no obligation to instantaneously adjust your treasure intake to account for your willful sundering. If your party falls behind WBL that should indeed be corrected, but that doesn't mean your sundering ass doesn't get to spend three sessions in poverty while the DM figures out where it would make sense to stick this windfall, because your character had no self-control.

In short, not only is WBL a guideline, it's a long-term guideline. Moment-to-moment, players can deviate above their allowance or below it, and a dedicated sunderer is far more likely to deviate below. (And take the party down with him.) If you don't like it, be a bit more discerning about what you break and why.

[Gnaeus]

More to the point, having characters take actions because the player views the actions as fun instead of for an in character reason is metagaming.

True. Although as metagaming problems go it is really easy to circumvent. All that one takes is for Player to decide that Character really enjoys breaking stuff, and then you have an IC motivation. The WBL example makes a lot less sense as in-game reasoning.

[Knaight]

True. Although as metagaming problems go it is really easy to circumvent. All that one takes is for Player to decide that Character really enjoys breaking stuff, and then you have an IC motivation. The WBL example makes a lot less sense as in-game reasoning.

I called it metagaming, I never said it was a metagaming problem. Its benign metagaming, if not actively useful metagaming.

[Psyren]

True. Although as metagaming problems go it is really easy to circumvent. All that one takes is for Player to decide that Character really enjoys breaking stuff, and then you have an IC motivation. The WBL example makes a lot less sense as in-game reasoning.

Which just leads to party conflict, as most adventurers would reasonably expect to not be keen on going around with someone that has a fetish for breaking valuable items. Certainly they would not want to split their unbroken share of the wealth with such a savage.

[Dyllan]

Which just leads to party conflict, as most adventurers would reasonably expect to not be keen on going around with someone that has a fetish for breaking valuable items. Certainly they would not want to split their unbroken share of the wealth with such a savage.

Which can be a good thing. Some of the best, most memorable roleplaying in my games (both as DM and as a player) was inter-party conflict. So long as none of the players have a problem with it, having their characters fight about it is great fun.

Now, when it causes players to get upset, it's time to reconsider character choices.

[Jopustopin]

I understand and agree with your argument. But the DM has no obligation to instantaneously adjust your treasure intake to account for your willful sundering. If your party falls behind WBL that should indeed be corrected, but that doesn't mean your sundering ass doesn't get to spend three sessions in poverty while the DM figures out where it would make sense to stick this windfall, because your character had no self-control.


I suppose I should clarify my argument since I agree that the DM is under no obligation to instantaneously adjust the treasure. Sundering is a dumb tactic for a lot of reasons, I just think "because you destroy your loot" isn't one of them. But if a DM is dumb enough not to plan ahead when a PC what's to explore sundering then I suppose the argument does work. But saying things like "Tough Luck" and "Man I have to think about a way to get a +1 longsword into your hand for the next four sessions" sounds sophomoric.

Here is my point: There should not be a metagaming punishment for an in game tactically sound strategy. Everyone knows getting treasure is exciting and fun. Punishing the player (as opposed to the PC) by saying things like "tough luck" saps the fun from the game. The only punishment for sundering treasure should be from proper role playing from fellow party members who rightfully (and incorrectly) see it as a loss of treasure.

I wish that they had just doubled the hitpoints on all the items in the game and declared that the item becomes "unusable" after it falls below half but could be repaired. That would make sundering fun and punishment free. Because I can see a young fighter looking at the barbarian and saying, "Man I could really have used that cool sword." :smallmad:

[hex0]

Doomlord anyone?

[Gnaeus]

Here is my point: There should not be a metagaming punishment for an in game tactically sound strategy. Everyone knows getting treasure is exciting and fun. Punishing the player (as opposed to the PC) by saying things like "tough luck" saps the fun from the game. The only punishment for sundering treasure should be from proper role playing from fellow party members who rightfully (and incorrectly) see it as a loss of treasure.


Thats true, there should not be a metagaming punishment for a tactically sound strategy. If the charge build barbarian was going to kill someone, and force the party to pay 25,000 gp+ casting costs for a true res or a lower cost coupled with a loss of a level, thats a good deal. If it keeps the party from losing, and lets them get any loot instead of no loot, that is tactically sound. Otherwise, you are just the crazy guy who broke the treasure, and should be treated as such by the DM and the other players.

[Slipperychicken]

I am amazed at the amount of people who let metagame issues like loot affect their enjoyment.

Your character subsists by looting corpses. This tactic gets him less money from those corpses. Even an 8-int barbarian understands that he is taking a loss by doing this. If he's fine with this, more power to him. He can work out a deal with the angry coworkers whose treasure he's breaking.


There are all the problems associated with attack-roll-reliance in general, like the 5%-automiss, AC, miss chances, and the "no"-buttons against attack rolls. You also have to get in close, be able to see the guy.

Here are some disadvantages:
-Does not neutralize enemies, it's at best a debuff
-It's harder (earlier analysis)
-Less profitable (from an in-character perspective, anyway)
-Time-consuming (one hit to sunder, another for damage)
-Situational (Many enemies just don't have sunderable weapons)

[Zaranthan]

I say if you break something the old-fashioned way, you can fix it the old-fashioned way. Snap a wand of fireball in half? You've got two pieces of enchanted wood. Stick a little wood glue in there, and you're in business again. According to the craft skill, said wood glue would cost one fifth of the item's price, so it's not like sundering costs nothing.

[classy one]

I should clarify that my PC did get less loot but mainly because as a psywar with a soulbound weapon I really didn't need as much loot. I have no idea if my DM adjusted the treasure due to my actions, nor did I expect him to.

I had a concept that I thought would be fun (ie Sundering) and I made a PC to achieve that. Is that not the basis for character creation?

No Sundering isn't perfect, but most front liners rely on their weapons and not having one basically makes them useless. A rather substantial debuff IMO. I still had plenty of powers and other tricks to deal with un-sunderable opponents.

[Gavinfoxx]

I thought most frontliners in the game that parties go up against rely on claws and natural armor? I mean really, what percentage of melee brutes in the monster manuals have equipment vs what percentage of them don't??

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

In before truenamer.

Why all this talk about the PC's being the ones using sunder? ;)


So long as none of the players have a problem with itBecause we all love those CN rogues in the par

[Vowtz]

But I do go for the "break your own loot" idea. I mean, if you wasted all your loot some other way (such as on tons of scrolls that you burn through instantly) do you expect the DM to just hand you more loot to make up for it?Agreed, if you destroy your loot, it's your problem, the DM will not give you more.