Sunder Opponent (PEACH)

[Hanuman]

******************************************
This rule is injected above Pin in the SRD under grapple rules: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple

----------------------------

Sunder an Opponent
You can attempt to wound an opponent by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack).

Make a called shot touch attack (-2 for a non-vital area, -5 for a vital area).

If you succeed make a free grapple check against your opponent's strength score + constitution score, if you succeed you wound the area, according to this table, including rolls that surpass the needed amount by +5 and +10

{table=head;width=50%]{colsp=4}
Bodily Sunder
Target Limb |
Sunder|
+5|
+10

Head (Vital)|
1 Int/Wis/Cha Damage 1d4 Rounds|
Stunned 1d4 Rounds|
Str+BAB Vs. Fort* or Decapitation
Sensory Organ (Vital)|
-2 Appropriate Skill Check 24h|
Organ Disabled|
Organ Removed
Limb (Arm/Hand)|
1d4 Fingers Broken, -2 to base attack with Limb|
Limb Broken & Incapacitated|
Limb Removed

Limb (Leg)|
Caltrop wound|
Leg Incapacitated, Caltrop Wound, -4 against Trip/Bullrush & Movement checks|
Limb Removed
Tentacle|
No Effect|
Tentacle Disabled|
Tentacle Removed
Spike/Horn|
No Effect|
No Effect|
Spike Removed

Fin/Wing|
1 Step Clumsier Fly or Swim, 1/2 Speed|
Fin/Wing Incapacitated|
Fin/Wing Removed
Other|
-2 Appropriate Check|
Other Incapacitated|
Other Removed
[/table]
*Creatures who are helpless are not entitled to a fortitude save.


Removing a bodypart in this way causes 2 Con damage for a medium creature and an additional +1 Con damage for every 2 size categories larger they are. Smaller creatures only take 1 con damage.

You gain a +4 to this check if the opponent is prone.

-Feat-
Improved Bodily Sunder
Requirements: Str 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5.

Gain +2 to your called shot for bodily sunder attempts.

Monks, Fighters or Ozodrin may take this in place of a bonus feat, starting at first level for monks.

Greater Bodily Sunder
Requirements: Str 15, Con 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8, Improved Bodily Sunder.

Deal unarmed strike damage when you succeed on a bodily sunder attempt.
Gain a +4 to grapple checks for bodily sunder attempts (this bonus does not count towards bodily sunders +5 or +10).

Monks, Fighters or Ozodrin may take this in place of a bonus feat.

******************************************

[Steward]

This works great especially for gorier, bloodier games (where damage is represented by more than just hitpoints).

I just have a point that I wanted to clear up:

So to use this, you make a grapple check, then a touch attack, and then a second grapple check? And the DC for the last check is just the opponent's Str + Con? (So if the poor guy has 18 Str and 18 Con, for example, the opposed DC is 36?)

Also, is there a way to attack the leg area? I see that under arm/limb you can attack and remove the leg but there doesn't seem to be any way to do any less severe damage than that (the way you have for the other areas).

[Hanuman]

This works great especially for gorier, bloodier games (where damage is represented by more than just hitpoints).

I just have a point that I wanted to clear up:

So to use this, you make a grapple check, then a touch attack, and then a second grapple check? And the DC for the last check is just the opponent's Str + Con? (So if the poor guy has 18 Str and 18 Con, for example, the opposed DC is 36?)

Also, is there a way to attack the leg area? I see that under arm/limb you can attack and remove the leg but there doesn't seem to be any way to do any less severe damage than that (the way you have for the other areas).
I love gritty campaigns!

This mechanic replaces your unarmed or weapon attack during a grapple, instead you can attempt to sunder them.

As for leg, it was in the table originally but the table syntax missed a break so it got hidden, hampering someone's legs is incredibly effective and shouldn't be disregarded.

Ok, how's this looking now?

[Steward]

Looks pretty good to me! This makes the rigor of a proper grapple check actually worthwhile and it seems to scale pretty well too.

What does "Fort V." mean?

[bobthe6th]

might make this doable in a similer manner to a trip... so I can say use my sythe to make a melee touch atack ect... and then have an opposed grapple check to just cut a limb off...

so it would be like.
melee attack with weapon at -5, anounce which limb you are attacking -> make a sunder body roll against opponents Str+con or AC, whichever is higher -> damage as on the table.
that make sense? it would be limited to scythe, sickle, kama, sia, kikuri, gisarme, halaberd.

[Spiryt]

This is nice idea, even though it adds some rolling to to already clunky grapple rules.




If you succeed make a free grapple check against your opponent's strength score + constitution score, if you succeed you wound the area, according to this table, including rolls that surpass the needed amount by +5 and +10


Why Strength and Con in particular though - this makes somehow non scaling DC, without involving BaB or Grapple skill of opponent in general.

[PEACH]

This is a ridiculously easy way to one shot opponents with even a mild bit of grapple optimization. The DCs need a huge rework to be something the opponent can actually contest.

[Hanuman]

Looks pretty good to me! This makes the rigor of a proper grapple check actually worthwhile and it seems to scale pretty well too.

What does "Fort V." mean?

It's a fort save vs. an incoming grapple check to decapitate, choke out or necksnap your character.


might make this doable in a similer manner to a trip... so I can say use my sythe to make a melee touch atack ect... and then have an opposed grapple check to just cut a limb off...

so it would be like.
melee attack with weapon at -5, anounce which limb you are attacking -> make a sunder body roll against opponents Str+con or AC, whichever is higher -> damage as on the table.
that make sense? it would be limited to scythe, sickle, kama, sia, kikuri, gisarme, halaberd.

http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf
Enjoy!



This is nice idea, even though it adds some rolling to to already clunky grapple rules.

Why Strength and Con in particular though - this makes somehow non scaling DC, without involving BaB or Grapple skill of opponent in general.
The same reason AC doesn't scale up, you have a scaling defense against the sunder being a grapple check, but by the time you oppose their str/con it's not about skill anymore, it's just a different representation of damage. I do validate the mechanical advantage of scaling, but then again you don't really roll a fort save every time you take damage-- I leave this to additional homebrew for the dicehappy.

The damage is originally unarmed (one die, plus strength usually), this attack changes it to a called shot, with a chance to deal con damage and you could most likely argue it's very effective vs. concentration checks.


This is a ridiculously easy way to one shot opponents with even a mild bit of grapple optimization. The DCs need a huge rework to be something the opponent can actually contest.
I think you'll find that the options presented in DnD allow "ridiculously easy one-shots" with most tier 1 or tier 2 classes when optimized. If your DM doesn't trust you with a rule like this it won't be allowed, same as if a DM doesn't trust you with a T1 or T2 char, it won't be allowed.

If you're implementing this in your campaign, allow it after the characters are made, and only if you think it's a good fit-- that's how all homebrew is balanced.

[PEACH]

I think you'll find that the options presented in DnD allow "ridiculously easy one-shots" with most tier 1 or tier 2 classes when optimized. If your DM doesn't trust you with a rule like this it won't be allowed, same as if a DM doesn't trust you with a T1 or T2 char, it won't be allowed.

If you're implementing this in your campaign, allow it after the characters are made, and only if you think it's a good fit-- that's how all homebrew is balanced.

The problem is that A: no save, just die generally doesn't occur for casters as early as level 10 (which this easily could, if not beforehand), and B: you aren't putting this on T1 and T2 classes. You're giving this option to classes that are T4 and T5 for the most part, so it's very imbalanced; the only thing worth doing as a melee class is using your touch attack no save no opposed roll no way to boost the check kill.

Balance cannot be justified by saying "T1 classes can break the game, so breaking the game is fine!" You should attempt to balance around whatever you're adding to, unless it's explicitly stated to try to change the tier of something. This does not make beatsticks T1 or T2, so it is imbalanced both for bringing fighters up to casters (which is almost impossible) and giving a balanced option to current beatsticks.

[Hanuman]

The problem is that A: no save, just die generally doesn't occur for casters as early as level 10 (which this easily could, if not beforehand), and B: you aren't putting this on T1 and T2 classes. You're giving this option to classes that are T4 and T5 for the most part, so it's very imbalanced; the only thing worth doing as a melee class is using your touch attack no save no opposed roll no way to boost the check kill.
There's a save, perhaps you want it to be Fort + Str V. Grapple?

I see no problem with giving T4 and 5's SoD abilities, especially ones that require you to close the gap between them and T1 characters (and probably get mauled in the process) or struggle to topple T4 and T5 monsters which have absurd grapple, str, con and fort.



Balance cannot be justified by saying "T1 classes can break the game, so breaking the game is fine!" You should attempt to balance around whatever you're adding to, unless it's explicitly stated to try to change the tier of something. This does not make beatsticks T1 or T2, so it is imbalanced both for bringing fighters up to casters (which is almost impossible) and giving a balanced option to current beatsticks.
You could def. suggest a substitute balance for the rule, otherwise you're free to use the table and not snap the neck, or edit it out of the table for your personal or DM suggested use.

I'm not saying breaking the game is fine, I'm just saying putting rules in place that allow for broken gameplay is fine, obviously if a DM doesn't trust a player with a rule they won't allow it, but having the rules work out well if used in moderation but not in abuse isn't a reason to switch over to 4e if you know what I mean.

I mean, I can't speak for everyone, different groups have different rules, different levels of metagaming, minmaxing, munchkining and PvP, and obv. these rules aren't designed to be put in RAW, it's just to provide more depth, grit and realism for those who wish it.

[PEACH]

There's a save, perhaps you want it to be Fort + Str V. Grapple?

There isn't a save, because A: eliminating a vital organ doesn't require a save and B: Saves versus grapple are basically meaningless. At the very least, make it so that the initial check required to instantly rip out something's heart is against a check the opponent can actually resist, not a grapple check against their stats, since that's both poor balance and incredibly nonstandard.


I see no problem with giving T4 and 5's SoD abilities, especially ones that require you to close the gap between them and T1 characters (and probably get mauled in the process) or struggle to topple T4 and T5 monsters which have absurd grapple, str, con and fort.

The problem is that when you start going into this logic, you recognize the horrible situation this causes. Against full casters who are easily zipping away, classes with absurd grapple can't do anything still. Against people who aren't zipping away, anybody with full grapple is going to instagib a non grappler at this point; there's just no reason to be anything but somebody with a grapple modifier of +massive. Against another grappler, you *still* have problems, because it's just an initiative fight; there's no effective way to resist, because even if you go for the headshot instead of the heartshot (or brainshot), they still have to make a fortitude save against what may be the easiest check to pump in the game. It turns every encounter into one roll per person with only a 5% chance of a miss and a 5% chance of failure.



You could def. suggest a substitute balance for the rule, otherwise you're free to use the table and not snap the neck, or edit it out of the table for your personal or DM suggested use.

Your title says PEACH. If your response to criticism is "you should either suggest a new rule, or houserule it", you are not really acting in the spirit of PEACH.


I'm not saying breaking the game is fine, I'm just saying putting rules in place that allow for broken gameplay is fine, obviously if a DM doesn't trust a player with a rule they won't allow it, but having the rules work out well if used in moderation but not in abuse isn't a reason to switch over to 4e if you know what I mean.

I mean, I can't speak for everyone, different groups have different rules, different levels of metagaming, minmaxing, munchkining and PvP, and obv. these rules aren't designed to be put in RAW, it's just to provide more depth, grit and realism for those who wish it.

The problems with the last paragraph are A: that D&D isn't realistic and B: even if D&D was close to realistic, with these rules it isn't unreasonable to disable somebody's brain with an attack at level 1 (A roll of 30 or so against a strengthless character on a grapple check; not a high chance, but possible), and it certainly isn't difficult by level 5. That isn't particularly sane.

Broken rules are problematic even with a great group and an amazing DM who keeps everything balanced, though I suppose if you could assume that then most rule abuse would be kept to a minimum. The problem with broken rules is that even if you work around them to make them non broken, you're still putting the effort in to make them non broken, there are grey areas where you're not sure (is "ripping out brains at level 1" bad? What about at level 5? What if I only do it occasionally as an incidental fact because I'm a hulking hurler?). And other groups may also have difficulties with that. If every group has to tread on eggshells and houserule your system, then it is likely the system needs fixing.

As for how to fix this, I honestly don't know. Grapple is already very simple to optimize and against non grapple immune characters, it can be almost impossible to escape and is basically a quasi save or die (on an opposed grapple roll, anyway). I just don't like the taste it leaves in my mouth where the only option left for beatsticks is "up your grapple mod, one shot everything that doesn't dodge."

[Hanuman]

There isn't a save, because A: eliminating a vital organ doesn't require a save and B: Saves versus grapple are basically meaningless. At the very least, make it so that the initial check required to instantly rip out something's heart is against a check the opponent can actually resist, not a grapple check against their stats, since that's both poor balance and incredibly nonstandard.
A) Eyes, ears, noses and tongues don't have saves because losing them is generally a minor loss, comparable to a called shot except more realistic losses. I don't have a torso sunder so heart is not an issue, lots of characters wear armors so I left it out as I'm not willing to write rules around armor like the link I posted for 2e crits. Helmets are another matter as necks are usually susceptible to injury even with them, in fact in the latest wars helmets have snapped more necks than they have saved due to high-dive off boats acting like a parachute when they hit the water.

B) This is a good point, what do you suggest as a replacement? I do agree that increasing a SoD to unlimited use should come with balance rather than spells which have limited use vs. saves.




The problem is that when you start going into this logic, you recognize the horrible situation this causes. Against full casters who are easily zipping away, classes with absurd grapple can't do anything still. Against people who aren't zipping away, anybody with full grapple is going to instagib a non grappler at this point; there's just no reason to be anything but somebody with a grapple modifier of +massive. Against another grappler, you *still* have problems, because it's just an initiative fight; there's no effective way to resist, because even if you go for the headshot instead of the heartshot (or brainshot), they still have to make a fortitude save against what may be the easiest check to pump in the game. It turns every encounter into one roll per person with only a 5% chance of a miss and a 5% chance of failure.
On one-shotting, a grappler with a +3 light weapon can one-shot on DC19 or +4 on DC22 (Stalactite (Und p69) and Tentacle (Und p69) respectively, the latter would be your brain-shot, and lowing a foes fort save down 4 or down 6 is fairly simple.

Lowering an opponents Str + Con is trickier as this generally goes 1d3 or 1d4 for good poisons, ect, so I agree that the fort needs a re-tune, but I want this to scale to attackers level so save v stat, save v touch, ect. are not useful. Perhaps save v BAB or HD + Str mod would be more useful.



Your title says PEACH. If your response to criticism is "you should either suggest a new rule, or houserule it", you are not really acting in the spirit of PEACH.
Mm, I'm responding to "this doesn't work for me" without really providing why, not sure how to take the critique/criticism.




The problems with the last paragraph are A: that D&D isn't realistic and B: even if D&D was close to realistic, with these rules it isn't unreasonable to disable somebody's brain with an attack at level 1 (A roll of 30 or so against a strengthless character on a grapple check; not a high chance, but possible), and it certainly isn't difficult by level 5. That isn't particularly sane.
A) DnD's HP system is realistic, it's just awkward to interpret and scales to the user's education. Not all DnD players are going to have a knowledge of anatomy and physiology and forcing 13 year old DM's to try and guess their little hearts out on combat and medicine is not something the game does or should do. Other DM's who have adventured IRL for years and years have more elaborate worlds to weave, to players who wish it.

But I do totally agree its still a board game and that people should be treated justly if the rules do not work even for players who use them responsibly.

B) Str 11 level 1 commoner vs level 1 PC and dying in 1 hit? So it's comparable to a sword through the chest then?



Broken rules are problematic even with a great group and an amazing DM who keeps everything balanced, though I suppose if you could assume that then most rule abuse would be kept to a minimum. The problem with broken rules is that even if you work around them to make them non broken, you're still putting the effort in to make them non broken, there are grey areas where you're not sure (is "ripping out brains at level 1" bad? What about at level 5? What if I only do it occasionally as an incidental fact because I'm a hulking hurler?). And other groups may also have difficulties with that. If every group has to tread on eggshells and houserule your system, then it is likely the system needs fixing.

Well the rules are def. supposed to be used incidentally, monks, weapon fighters, ect. as a sub ability of a special attack-- same as a fighter would use a bull rush or a monk would use a trip, even if untrained.

Snapping a neck I imagine to be fairly easy for a behemoth of a grappler, necks are fragile things compared to the strength of someone's back, and with good leverage pretty much all joints are pretty fragile-- scaling up with difficulty.



As for how to fix this, I honestly don't know. Grapple is already very simple to optimize and against non grapple immune characters, it can be almost impossible to escape and is basically a quasi save or die (on an opposed grapple roll, anyway). I just don't like the taste it leaves in my mouth where the only option left for beatsticks is "up your grapple mod, one shot everything that doesn't dodge."

On fixes, taking more rounds or actions, another opposed grapple, or changing grap v fort to something like IncValue that raises with HD + stat v fort, any one of these could work.

It sounds like you don't like having a SoD in it, which I'm validating. Some things don't need one (or any) of their heads, so it's not necessarily SoD in all cases.

[Steward]

It sounds like you don't like having a SoD in it, which I'm validating. Some things don't need one (or any) of their heads, so it's not necessarily SoD in all cases.

I think that the power might be more of an issue for the PCs than for the monsters. Most PC races do need their heads to function, and most are disrupted if they actually lose a limb. This works in a pretty gritty setting but I can see how at low levels this might be hard to deal with if the DM optimizes the monster's grapple.

[lunar2]

ok, quick rework here.

sunder limb works exactly like sunder. you need a bludgeoning or slashing weapon, you make a touch attack. limbs are, say, 2 size categories smaller than the character they're attached to, and get an appropriate bonus to AC, so trying to sunder a fine creature is basically impossible, as their limbs get a +24 to their touch AC compared to the creature's already high touch AC. then you follow the rules for sundering a weapon. limbs will have con mod hp per hit die (min. 1 per HD). getting a limb to 0 HP will give a -2 penalty to actions associated with that limb. getting a limb to negative HP will disable it, and getting it to -10 hp (or whatever the death number is in your game) will remove it. note that you can do nonlethal damage to the limb to avoid removing it. the head(s) are slightly different. injuring a head (getting it to 0 hp) gives penalties to head related actions (mental skills, sensory skills, movement skills, and casting, for example). disabling the head only stops the related actions, it doesn't knock the creature unconscious, although removing the head still kills the creature (if applicable). heads are 1 size category smaller than other limbs for the touch attack. removing a limb does 1d4 con damage, and causes bleeding damage for 2hp per round.

[Hanuman]

I think that the power might be more of an issue for the PCs than for the monsters. Most PC races do need their heads to function, and most are disrupted if they actually lose a limb. This works in a pretty gritty setting but I can see how at low levels this might be hard to deal with if the DM optimizes the monster's grapple.
I agree wholeheartedly, but characters playing at disadvantage is why circumstance XP modifiers were added to the DMG. I don't see this happening if unwanted by the DM and therefore the players.


ok, quick rework here.

sunder limb works exactly like sunder. you need a bludgeoning or slashing weapon, you make a touch attack. limbs are, say, 2 size categories smaller than the character they're attached to, and get an appropriate bonus to AC, so trying to sunder a fine creature is basically impossible, as their limbs get a +24 to their touch AC compared to the creature's already high touch AC. then you follow the rules for sundering a weapon. limbs will have con mod hp per hit die (min. 1 per HD). getting a limb to 0 HP will give a -2 penalty to actions associated with that limb. getting a limb to negative HP will disable it, and getting it to -10 hp (or whatever the death number is in your game) will remove it. note that you can do nonlethal damage to the limb to avoid removing it. the head(s) are slightly different. injuring a head (getting it to 0 hp) gives penalties to head related actions (mental skills, sensory skills, movement skills, and casting, for example). disabling the head only stops the related actions, it doesn't knock the creature unconscious, although removing the head still kills the creature (if applicable). heads are 1 size category smaller than other limbs for the touch attack. removing a limb does 1d4 con damage, and causes bleeding damage for 2hp per round.
- I agree, but I think the head should def. be diminutive as animals tend to protect their heads. Sundering a fly's wings should be pretty impossible yes I agree.

-This is an interesting idea, I would probably have this deal damage as normal with this system (as a lethal subdual), that way each attack contributes damage to the standard HP pool. The con damage is nice, and the bleeding should have a heal DC to stop it, and I do love forcing heal checks on players :smallsmile: The main problem with this, is that it requires HP-recalculation DM-side, which doesn't work out very well for any campaign style I've played. I think it's still a good way to create a damagepool non-crit debuff hit mechanic.

[lunar2]

i did say towards the end that the head would be one size smaller than the other limbs. so a medium creature would have tiny arms/legs, and a diminutive head, like you suggested.

[Hanuman]

Ah yes I do see that now.

Ok, revision to the save as:

Str+BAB Vs. Fort* or Decapitation

and

*Creatures who are helpless are not entitled to a fortitude save.

This allows for a decent balance for existing SoD's, and also allows a grapple coup de gras effect at a considerable boost to efficiency in junction with the justicar's hogtie effect.

Thoughts?