All about Sunder Rules of the game?

[Shoelessme]

As the title suggests I have some confusion on the sunder rules and I would like to lay all the rules out clearly here.
Please treat this as a rules thread not an opinion. Site source/pg # for answers. I will number my starting questions as Q#, please answer as A#. Feel free to post questions you might have as well.

Q1. If 2 people both have improved sunder does only the attacker get the +4 bonus on his attack roll?

Q2. With Combat Brute can you cleave through a shield and a weapon, or two weapons, then into the person? The feat specifies that after destroying a weapon or shield you can "cleave", that is you get another melee attack against your foe. Since sunder is an attack....you get my question i hope.

Q3. Does dwarf crafted (from RoS) stack with material? and if so how? Adamantine for instance states it is already masterwork. You cant stack dwarf crafted and masterwork though so?

Q4. If a weapon is adamantite and you use it to sunder it ignores some hardness I understand (up to 20).
" Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20"
So does this mean that adamantine sundering adamantine still has to get through 20 points of hardness? Since 20 is not less then 20 you don't bypass the hardness? Or is it that you bypass 19 points of hardness but it still has 1 (i don't think this is right)?

Q5. A broken shield still occupies that hand until you use a free action to drop it. So if I break someone shield then they get an AoO for some reason they can only use 1 hand on their weapon?

Q6. If I sunder your weapon but you still have a shield equipped, say a heavy shield, can you AoO with the shield as a One handed weapon, loosing the armor bonus? Do you need Improved Shield bash to do this? If you do it without Improved Shield bash do they then get an AoO on you?

That's a good place to start. I am running a viking campaign where sundering shields is very common. I would like to understand these rules before I get in to deep. I appreciate the help.

[Shoelessme]

Q7. Can you AoO with a shield only. IE the weapon broke.

[BowStreetRunner]

A1. There are three different bonuses applied that need to be kept separate. First, there is a +4 for a two-handed weapon and -4 for a light weapon. This modifier applies to both attacker and defender based on their weapons. Second, there is a size modifier of +4 per difference in size category. This applies to the larger combatant whether attacker or defender. Third, there is a +4 granted specifically by the Improved Sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedSunder) feat, which is the bonus I believe you are asking about. This bonus only applies to the attacker, regardless of whether the defender has this feat. Specifically: Since the defender is not making an attack roll to attack an object held or carried by another character, this bonus does not trigger.

A2. This one is a bit tricky. The wording of Combat Brute states "you gain an immediate additional melee attack against the foe." When I look at the rules for normal melee attacks and special attacks, they are a bit vague on certain points. However, where the sunder rules state "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding." I take this to mean that as long as 1) you can make a melee attack against an opponent and 2) you are using a slashing or bludgeoning weapon then you can use that melee attack against an object they are holding instead. The way I see it, special attacks are attacks 'against an opponent' that have other effects besides just doing normal hit point damage from a single weapon attack. (Even two-weapon fighting is considered a special attack, after all.) However, your DM might feel that a special attack does not constitute an attack 'against the foe'.

A3. Dwarvencraft items (ROS 159) are always of masterwork quality. Adamantine and Mithral items (DMG 283-284) are always of masterwork quality. Dwarvencraft items can be made of any metal or stone, including special materials such as Adamantine and Mithral. Regardless of whether they are made of such materials, or out of materials like Cold Iron or normal Steel, you only apply the properties of masterwork weapons [+1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls, +300 gp to cost] or masterwork armor [reduce armor check penalty by 1, +150 gp to cost] once. So an Adamantine dagger would have the properties: +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, ignore hardness less than 20, and cost 3002 gp. A Dwarvencraft dagger would have the properties: +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, +2 hardness, +10 hp, +2 on item saving throws, and cost 602 gp. A dagger that was both Adamantine AND Dwarvencraft would have the properties: +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, ignore hardness less than 20, +2 hardness, +10 hp, +2 on item saving throws, and cost 3302 gp. Note that both the 3000gp Adamantine cost and 600gp Dwarvencraft cost included a 300gp Masterwork cost, which is not doubled when the two are combined.

A4. An object with Hardness X ignores the first X points of damage any time it is dealt damage. Adamantine weapons ignore hardness less than 20. (Gee, could they have maybe come up with a better way to word this ability?) So taken exactly as worded, anything with hardness 0-19 would be treated as if it had no hardness when attacked with an Adamantine weapon, while anything with hardness 20+ would work the same as if you attacked it with a non-Adamantine weapon. Honestly, I don't know many DMs who would stick with the RAW rule here. Most would say that RAI, when attacking an object with an Adamantine weapon, reduce the object's hardness by 20 points, then resolve the attack as you would with a normal weapon. But it is your DM's call.

A5. This one really depends on the DM. First of all, there is nothing in the rule that explicitly states what happens to an object destroyed by Sunder. The DM could rule that you are still holding the broken object, or that it falls to the ground when destroyed. Second, it is generally considered a free action both to drop a weapon, and to switch from a one-handed to a two-handed grip on a weapon (this was discussed in the 3.5 FAQ). Since most free actions can only occur on your turn (with the possible exception of speaking, depending on the DM), even if the shield fell to the ground you would still be holding your weapon one-handed. Which is advantageous if you want to sunder their shield and their weapon without giving them +4 for holding the weapon two-handed.

A6. A Shield Bash (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#shieldBashAttacks) attack is a special attack that can be performed by anyone. You do not need any feat to do this, just a shield. Normally, when you do a shield bash you lost the AC bonus from the shield until your next action and it counts as an off-hand weapon, which means two-weapon fighting penalties are applied. So yes, you can use a shield to make an AoO.

A7. The rules don't make a distinction between holding a weapon and shield, or just a shield. I would treat this as if your primary weapon is an unarmed strike, although as long as you hold the shield you are still considered armed even if you don't have improved unarmed strike. You can still make an AoO, but the two-weapon fighting penalties still apply. (A DM would certainly be in line to house-rule that fighting with only a shield constitutes using the shield as your primary weapon, of course.)

[Diarmuid]

A6. A Shield Bash attack is a special attack that can be performed by anyone. You do not need any feat to do this, just a shield. Normally, when you do a shield bash you lost the AC bonus from the shield until your next action and it counts as an off-hand weapon, which means two-weapon fighting penalties are applied. So yes, you can use a shield to make an AoO.

A7. The rules don't make a distinction between holding a weapon and shield, or just a shield. I would treat this as if your primary weapon is an unarmed strike, although as long as you hold the shield you are still considered armed even if you don't have improved unarmed strike. You can still make an AoO, but the two-weapon fighting penalties still apply. (A DM would certainly be in line to house-rule that fighting with only a shield constitutes using the shield as your primary weapon, of course.)

With regards to A6/A7, a Shield Bash does not inherently count as an off-hand attack by default. It does if you have already made your iterative attacks for the round with another weapon(s), but there is nothing stopping you from making a Shield Bash attack as your primary weapon. To answer the question asked, Shields count as weapons and you threaten with them like any other weapon. If you were to take an AoO against a foe with your shield you would incur no inherent penalties other than to lose that shield's AC bonus until your next turn unless you had the Improved Shield Bash feat.

[BowStreetRunner]

With regards to A6/A7, a Shield Bash does not inherently count as an off-hand attack by default. It does if you have already made your iterative attacks for the round with another weapon(s), but there is nothing stopping you from making a Shield Bash attack as your primary weapon. To answer the question asked, Shields count as weapons and you threaten with them like any other weapon. If you were to take an AoO against a foe with your shield you would incur no inherent penalties other than to lose that shield's AC bonus until your next turn unless you had the Improved Shield Bash feat.

From the SRD: "You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." (Underlining added by me.)

[Shoelessme]

From the SRD: "You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." (Underlining added by me.)

You can. It could be argued though that you can also use it as a primary. And I know there is a FAQ on that one where a Wotc rep said they never intended that to be off hand only.

Still thats FAQ not RAW. I house rule this one personally. BTW. I am the DM. So I will have to take your advice and see what is worth house ruling = ]. So include RAW but feel free to give advice as well.

EDIT: I would think that you can only AoO with a weapon that you are threatening with so I doubt you could AoO with your unarmed strike without the feat. If the shield threatens though I could see that working.

[Diarmuid]

Wielding it as an offhand weapon does not incur any penalties unless you try to make the "extra attack" per the two weapon fighting rules.

[BowStreetRunner]

And I know there is a FAQ on that one where a Wotc rep said they never intended that to be off hand only.

I found the FAQ. It states "While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon."

This sounds eminently reasonable to me, and if I were the DM I would use this.

[Shoelessme]

Since combat brute is so badly worded that maybee you can cleave/great cleave multiple items then the person what is your opinion of what it should be? That is what do you think the RAI are for it? If someone held up his shield and sword to bock a heavy blow I could see both being broken by one mighty hit.... (B movie theater in my head :smallsmile:) or a guy crossing his dual swords to stop a blow and the blow shattering both of them then going on to crush his skull....

[Shoelessme]

Wielding it as an offhand weapon does not incur any penalties unless you try to make the "extra attack" per the two weapon fighting rules.

I saw a huge argument about this in another thread. Without getting into THAT nasty can of words, I will say that the general feel was that offhand only exists if you are trying to two weapon fight (TWF). If your not TWF then you can declare as you please witch hand is your primary.

[Shoelessme]

Q8. I looked at sundering shields as the same + and - as the weapon they represent. that is a light shield corresponds to a light weapon so it is a -4 on a sunder check. A heavy is a 1 handed so nothing.

What is a buckler then?

[Diarmuid]

I saw a huge argument about this in another thread. Without getting into THAT nasty can of words, I will say that the general feel was that offhand only exists if you are trying to two weapon fight (TWF). If your not TWF then you can declare as you please witch hand is your primary.

If you have BAB of 6 and you have a Longsword in 1 hand and a Shortsword in the other, you could make a single attack with both weapons and not suffer any of the TWF rules.

Offhand only applies when you are making use of these rules:


TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
•If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
•The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

[BowStreetRunner]

If you have BAB of 6 and you have a Longsword in 1 hand and a Shortsword in the other, you could make a single attack with both weapons and not suffer any of the TWF rules.

While I understand your point, I'm not sure there are many instances where you would actually want to switch weapons between iterative attacks. Why not just use the best weapon for all of your attacks? For that matter, why not wield your best weapon two-handed for the increased damage from your STR bonus? I don't think this is going to come up often, but worth knowing nonetheless.

[Shoelessme]

If you have BAB of 6 and you have a Longsword in 1 hand and a Shortsword in the other, you could make a single attack with both weapons and not suffer any of the TWF rules.

Offhand only applies when you are making use of these rules:

Exactly. Since your using iterative attacks (+6,+1) and 1 each with separate weapons there is no penalty. Thus for each individual attack you designated that hand as the primary. There was some argument though. I disagree with it but there was some. Look up the dual shield thread if you want to see it in all its ugliness.

[Shoelessme]

While I understand your point, I'm not sure there are many instances where you would actually want to switch weapons between iterative attacks. Why not just use the best weapon for all of your attacks? For that matter, why not wield your best weapon two-handed for the increased damage from your STR bonus? I don't think this is going to come up often, but worth knowing nonetheless.

Also true. You could do this.....you also could stab yourself. Why would you though.

EDIT: Actually I thouhgt up one weird case. You have 2 weapons of different properties for damage reduction. You stab one guy with silver and another with iron.... Still probably better to use silver twice then switch but might work.

[Shoelessme]

Ill bump this up again. Any idea on this one BowStreetRunner?

Q8. I looked at sundering shields as the same + and - as the weapon they represent. that is a light shield corresponds to a light weapon so it is a -4 on a sunder check. A heavy is a 1 handed so nothing.

What is a buckler then?

[Fouredged Sword]

A buckler does not correspond to a weapon, and thus gets no penalty or bonus? One cannot bash with a buckler unless I am mistaken (and it happens).

[BowStreetRunner]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#buckler): "You can’t bash someone with a buckler."

[Shoelessme]

A buckler does not correspond to a weapon, and thus gets no penalty or bonus? One cannot bash with a buckler unless I am mistaken (and it happens).

I don't like the idea that a buckler, that should be easier to sunder than a light sheild is actualy harder to hit because of odd language in the rules. If it is counted as worn and not a weapon then it could be treated as
10+size mod + owners Dex as a straight ac rather than a contested. but its a sheild witch is specifically listed as a contested roll. Maybee I should house rule it as a -4 as well? or a -6?

[Fouredged Sword]

A buckler is a buckler, not a shield. It is worn, not held. I would use the worn item rules as the best ft.

[herrhauptmann]

While I understand your point, I'm not sure there are many instances where you would actually want to switch weapons between iterative attacks. Why not just use the best weapon for all of your attacks? For that matter, why not wield your best weapon two-handed for the increased damage from your STR bonus? I don't think this is going to come up often, but worth knowing nonetheless.

I think it's more useful for double weapons like the urgrosh or two bladed sword. Particularly when the different ends are crafted of different materials or have vastly different enchantments on them.
This will allow you to use your two-handed strength bonus without having two actually swap weapons.

[Shoelessme]

A buckler is a buckler, not a shield. It is worn, not held. I would use the worn item rules as the best ft.

You sure about this? A buckler is a shield because you need to have the shield proficiency to use one.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm
also its listed under the shields section here. The whole worn not carried saw has been overused in these cases I think. From the improved sunder feat text.
"When you strike at an object held or carried by an opponent (such as a weapon or shield)"
this is from the SRD. Since the armor table states that a buckler is a shield and this text clearly states that a shield is held or carried I think this shows that a buckler does not count as worn.

[Fouredged Sword]

Yes, but you can also hold a weapon in that hand, as the buckler is literally strapped to the arm.

It does seem to fall into a odd little rule hole. Ether count it as a light shield (as it is lighter than a light shield) or count it as a worn item.

[Shoelessme]

Yes, but you can also hold a weapon in that hand, as the buckler is literally strapped to the arm.

It does seem to fall into a odd little rule hole. Ether count it as a light shield (as it is lighter than a light shield) or count it as a worn item.

It's true you can hold a weapon in that hand. But the rest of the sheilds use very similar wording. IE
"Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."
So it says strap instead of worn. You can still use that hand, although not for a weapon. I can't see a buckler as counting as anything but carried as is every other shield. Despite the term "worn" in its flavor text.

[Shoelessme]

Q9. Does a 1 handed weapon used 2 handed get the bonus of +4 to sunder?

[Gwendol]

If you have BAB of 6 and you have a Longsword in 1 hand and a Shortsword in the other, you could make a single attack with both weapons and not suffer any of the TWF rules.

Offhand only applies when you are making use of these rules:

This is not true. One of the weapons you hold will be an off-hand weapon, suffering the consequences of to hit and damage of those. You can change the primary/secondary designation, but not in the same attack sequence.

See for example this about double weapons:

Double Weapons
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

And (from the description of the gnome hooked hammer):


You can use either head as the primary weapon. The other head is the offhand weapon.

And for thrown weapons under TWF rules we have:


Thrown Weapons
The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand.

Note that a) for double weapons one end is the primary weapon, while the other is the offhand weapon. Not conditional.
b) Using both ends of a double weapon incurs "all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat". Not conditional.
c) Throwing weapons from each hand means applying the TWF rules, not conditional.

From this we can simply conclude that the rules describing TWF apply to all situations where you wield a primary and a secondary (offhand) weapon, be that a longsword/shortsword combo, a guisarme/armor spike, a double weapon, or two-handed throwing.
Fighting in this way refers to fighting with multiple weapons, and can't be circumvented by not taking the extra attack.

[TuggyNE]

This is not true.

Please, no. Let's not get into the old and tired "can you wield two weapons without TWFing?" argument again.

[Gwendol]

Please complain about the facts instead of me.

[Gullintanni]

Please complain about the facts instead of me.

The problem is that we disagree about the facts, specifically RE: the phrase, "Fighting in this way", which some take to mean as fighting with two weapons, and some take as meaning taking additional attacks with two weapons. Both are grammatically valid interpretations of the language; however, one interpretation is more restrictive than the other.

This is a case that requires DM adjudication by default, and given that the topic of the thread is not discussion of the TWF rules, we should probably refrain from rehashing an old argument that never saw resolution in the thread where it was initially discussed.

TLDR - Threadjacking is mean. Let's not.


Q9. Does a 1 handed weapon used 2 handed get the bonus of +4 to sunder?

The relevant language, by my reading, appears in the SRD as follows:

One-Handed
A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Bolded for emphasis. A one-handed weapon wielded in two hands is still a one-handed weapon and acts exactly like a one-handed weapon in all cases, except as referenced by the bolded text. Therefore, a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands is still treated as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of sundering. The only advantage in this case is increased damage.

[Gwendol]

But it is relevant to the discussion here. Also, please look at the rules for double weapons, for two-handed throwing, for shield bashing (agile shield fighter feat). They all unconditionally impose TWF rules when using more than one weapon in "at once", and they don't make much sense under your reading of The Phrase. Thus no DM adjudication is necessary.

Houseruling to make TWF more attractive is highly recommended though.

Also, back on topic, shield bashing is a good way to do away with the inane DEX requirement of TWF using the agile shield fighter feat. That way you can sunder with the shield and follow up with a weapon or boot blade or armor spike thrust.

[Shoelessme]

expunged

Please do not highjack my thread. Answer the questions or add details about Sunder attacks only please.

[Shoelessme]

Q10. Does a bastard sword get the +4 for two handed? or only if its used as 2 handed?

[BowStreetRunner]

only if its used as 2 handed

^There you go.^

Edit: The same is true for any two-handed weapon wielded in one hand. For instance, the spiked chain can be wielded one-handed by certain characters with the Cavestalker PrC.

[Gullintanni]

^There you go.^

Edit: The same is true for any two-handed weapon wielded in one hand. For instance, the spiked chain can be wielded one-handed by certain characters with the Cavestalker PrC.

I'd have to disagree here. I don't think a Bastard Sword would receive +4 bonus during sundering. The weapon's entry reads as follows:

Sword, Bastard
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

The weapon chart lists the Bastard Sword as an Exotic One-Handed Weapon.

Sunder, as a special attack, only checks one variable to determine penalties and bonuses, and that is the weapon category. Specifically:

A light weapon always receives a -4 penalty to sunder.
A one-handed weapon receives neither a penalty or a bonus.
A two-handed weapon always receives a +4 bonus.

While a Bastard Sword may be used in two hands, the text above does not change the weapon's type from One-Handed Weapon to Two-Handed Weapon. For that to be the case, the text would have to read:

Sword, Bastard
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character may use a Bastard Sword in two hands as a Two-Handed Weapon. When used this way, a Bastard Sword is treated as a martial weapon.

Your example of the spiked chain still works though, unless the PrC in question changes the spiked chain's effective weapon type to One-Handed Exotic.

I think I've got the RAW right here. I think I'd probably house rule around it, because I think a Bastard Sword held in two hands deserves a +4 a lot more than a Spiked Chain held in one, but...I don't think that's how it breaks down.

[Shoelessme]

Interesting Distinction. I'm not sure if your right or not. But if you are I do agree that I would house rule this one. You should get the sunder bonus for using it in two hands.

[Gwendol]

Not really. The bastard sword is listed under one-handed exotic weapons. A double weapon on the other hand is listed as 2-handed exotic, even though they can be used 1-handed. By RAW I guess the argument can be made you should still receive the +4 bonus...

[BowStreetRunner]

I'd have to disagree here.

You may be right here. The Sunder rule states "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." [Emphasis added]

I always thought of this as the advantage of having both hands on the weapon, but it appears it has more to do with the weapon size. In fact, in this case a spiked chain wielded in one hand would still have a +4 bonus.

Not sure if I like that, but RAW that does appear to be how it works. I guess I will have to read more carefully next time. Good catch, Gullintanni.

[Shoelessme]

Not really. The bastard sword is listed under one-handed exotic weapons. A double weapon on the other hand is listed as 2-handed exotic, even though they can be used 1-handed. By RAW I guess the argument can be made you should still receive the +4 bonus...

Now you are just causing trouble. A double weapon also clearly states that you treat the back end as a light weapon.

[Shoelessme]

You may be right here. The Sunder rule states "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." [Emphasis added]

I always thought of this as the advantage of having both hands on the weapon, but it appears it has more to do with the weapon size. In fact, in this case a spiked chain wielded in one hand would still have a +4 bonus.

Not sure if I like that, but RAW that does appear to be how it works. I guess I will have to read more carefully next time. Good catch, Gullintanni.

Actually i dont think you an sunder at all with a spiked cahin. it counts as piercing

[Gwendol]

Yes, but only if you are using both ends. I can't see any practical reason for why you would want to use the double weapon 1-handed when sundering since damage will suffer, but apparantly the weapon bonus will not.

[Shoelessme]

Yes, but only if you are using both ends. I can't see any practical reason for why you would want to use the double weapon 1-handed when sundering since damage will suffer, but apparantly the weapon bonus will not.

No,
"just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."

that's the text for a double weapon. So at best you have no bonus. You could just as easily give the entire weapon a -4 on sunder.

[BowStreetRunner]

Actually i dont think you an sunder at all with a spiked cahin. it counts as piercing

That's not what I was talking about. The bonus/penalty on the opposed roll applies to both combatants. So when I was typing this I was remembering sadly my +2 Living Chain that got smashed to bits by a Huge monster last year. :smallfrown:

RAW, if I go to sunder a spiked chain being wielded one-handed by a drow cavestalker, he still gets +4 on his opposed roll to avoid getting his chain smashed to little bits.

On another note, a double weapon is always a two-handed weapon, regardless of whether you are using both ends as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. That part only applied to your two-weapon fighting attack penalties, not to the sunder mechanic.

[Gullintanni]

Not sure if I like that, but RAW that does appear to be how it works. I guess I will have to read more carefully next time. Good catch, Gullintanni.

For what it's worth, I don't much like it myself. I'm having trouble guessing at the rationale WoTC used to write the Sunder rules. If I had to guess, it's maybe that two handed weapons, by virtue of being larger, are also of sturdier construction.

If that's the case though, I'm not going to be the one to try and explain how a wooden hafted longspear gets an advantage over a hand axe.

[Shoelessme]

On another note, a double weapon is always a two-handed weapon, regardless of whether you are using both ends as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. That part only applied to your two-weapon fighting attack penalties, not to the sunder mechanic.

Why is this? text trumps tables normally. and the text says it counts as a normal and a light if twf it can be used one handed and it can be used two handed (or one handed apparently without a penalty witch is really weird). This is the same text as a bastard sword "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed" " A character can use a bastard sword two-handed". So if a bastard sword doesn't count why does a double weapon?

[Gullintanni]

Why is this? text trumps tables normally. and the text says it counts as a normal and a light if twf it can be used one handed and it can be used two handed (or one handed apparently without a penalty witch is really weird). This is the same text as a bastard sword "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed" " A character can use a bastard sword two-handed". So if a bastard sword doesn't count why does a double weapon?

Here's the problem. D&D draws a distinction between dictionary definitions and game terms.

Two-Handed Weapon is a game term, whereas two handed weapon is a dictionary definition. This creates a lot of theoretical ambiguities to someone who doesn't necessarily understand the way that WoTC writes their sourcebooks. So, here's the language again:

From the Dwarven Urgosh

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."

From the Bastard Sword

"A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."

Both cases are very specific. The wielder of an Urgosh incurs all the normal "attack penalties" of fighting with a one-handed and a light weapon, but nothing else. The text doesn't specify that the weapon is to be treated in all cases as a one-handed and a light weapon. Only for the sake of making attacks and only while using the weapon for two weapon fighting. For all other purposes, the Table is the authoritative rule, and the table describes an Urgosh as a Two-Handed Weapon.

The bastard sword behaves the same way. Re-parsing the language of the bastard sword text, the result is this:

"A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword in two hands, and in such a case, treat the weapon as martial instead of exotic."

The entry doesn't state that the bastard sword becomes a Two-Handed Melee Weapon, only that it can be used in two hands. It does not, ergo, contradict the table, and the table is left as the governing ruleset for Bastard Swords.

Clear as mud, no?

[BowStreetRunner]

Why is this? text trumps tables normally. and the text says it counts as a normal and a light if twf it can be used one handed and it can be used two handed (or one handed apparently without a penalty witch is really weird). This is the same text as a bastard sword "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed" " A character can use a bastard sword two-handed". So if a bastard sword doesn't count why does a double weapon?

It's the "AS IF" part of the rules that matters here. The weapon doesn't actually become a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, you just get to use the two-weapon fighting rules as if it were. It's still a two-handed weapon in reality. The sunder mechanic doesn't care if you are wielding it as if it were one-handed, two-handed, three-handed, or a pink silk handkerchief. What sunder cares about is whether it IS a two-handed weapon. So a double-weapon is always a two-handed weapon for the purposes of sunder, even if you are wielding it as if it weren't. And a bastard sword is always a one-handed weapon for the purposes of sunder, even if you are wielding it with two hands.

[Shoelessme]

Here's the problem. D&D draws a distinction between dictionary definitions and game terms.

Two-Handed Weapon is a game term, whereas two handed weapon is a dictionary definition. This creates a lot of theoretical ambiguities to someone who doesn't necessarily understand the way that WoTC writes their sourcebooks. So, here's the language again:

From the Dwarven Urgosh

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."

From the Bastard Sword

"A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."

Both cases are very specific. The wielder of an Urgosh incurs all the normal "attack penalties" of fighting with a one-handed and a light weapon, but nothing else. The text doesn't specify that the weapon is to be treated in all cases as a one-handed and a light weapon. Only for the sake of making attacks and only while using the weapon for two weapon fighting. For all other purposes, the Table is the authoritative rule, and the table describes an Urgosh as a Two-Handed Weapon.

The bastard sword behaves the same way. Re-parsing the language of the bastard sword text, the result is this:

"A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword in two hands, and in such a case, treat the weapon as martial instead of exotic."

The entry doesn't state that the bastard sword becomes a Two-Handed Melee Weapon, only that it can be used in two hands. It does not, ergo, contradict the table, and the table is left as the governing ruleset for Bastard Swords.

Clear as mud, no?
Ya as mud... There are so many places that doesn't make sense. For instance a sunder is an apposed attack role. So if you were using a double weapon for twf the round before the sunder you would roll an attack against my great axe (for instance). Since you are rolling an attack then "You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon" the penalties they mention could include a -4 for a light weapon. Also what about the rest of the text for double weapons?

"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it" it uses the same language so arguably it does not make the weapon a two handed weapon. The default position for a double weapon is basically 2 weapons connected but held 1 in each hand. The alternate modes are 1 handed or 2 handed. Same as for a bastard sword the default position is 1 handed exotic. the alternate is two handed martial. This makes sense to anyone else?

[Gullintanni]

Ya as mud... There are so many places that doesn't make sense. For instance a sunder is an apposed attack role. So if you were using a double weapon for twf the round before the sunder you would roll an attack against my great axe (for instance). Since you are rolling an attack then "You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon" the penalties they mention could include a -4 for a light weapon. Also what about the rest of the text for double weapons?

"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it" it uses the same language so arguably it does not make the weapon a two handed weapon. The default position for a double weapon is basically 2 weapons connected but held 1 in each hand. The alternate modes are 1 handed or 2 handed. Same as for a bastard sword the default position is 1 handed exotic. the alternate is two handed martial. This makes sense to anyone else?

The default classification of a double weapon, in game terms, is Two-Handed Weapon. There is no language in the description of the weapon that states that it ever ceases to be a Two-Handed weapon. It can just be used in a multitude of ways that are uncommon to other Two-Handed Weapons.

Now you have a point in that Sunder is an opposed attack roll; however, the weapon description states:

"...you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons..."

So yes you inherit any attack penalties even for Sundering; however, the only penalty for fighting with two weapons is a -2/-2 on attack rolls (or -4/-4 in this case if the requisite TWF feats are not purchased). The -4 sundering penalty is not a TWF penalty, it is a weapon classification penalty, and as discussed, a double weapon is, at no time, anything other than a Two Handed Weapon. It behaves, specifically for TWF, as though it were a One-Handed and a Light weapon, but only for the purposes of modifying your attack roll, not for the purposes of modifying the weapon size.

There is a material difference between:

"...you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon..." and,

"...you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons. When used this way, treat the Dwarven Urgosh as a One-Handed Weapon and a Light Weapon."

The first statement describes your style of combat (TWF vs. One handed fighting vs. THF), while the second describes the classification of your weapon.

It's pedantic as all hell, but unfortunately that's the way RAW works. :smallannoyed:

[Gwendol]

Yeah, it's as if there is a tuning in period to start understanding how to decipher RAW. You need to "unlearn" some things.

[Shoelessme]

Thankfully I don't play society games. So i can tune out there more retarded RAW decrees and use some common sense.

[Gwendol]

Whatever floats your boat!
In any case it's always good to know what the rules are before making changes; informed decisions and all that.