Under the Sunder

[Asisreo1]

Has anyone noticed how you can target worn objects with anything that doesn't explicitly tell you can't like a spell.

Therefore, it's reasonable to sunder someone's armor or weapon while they're holding or wearing it. I don't think this is broken as a DM, because while you can do this, you're spending an attack, usually against a higher AC, and you aren't doing damage to the actual creature wearing the armor. Most creatures won't sunder weapons or armor unless something is being particularly annoying and they are intelligent.

On the player's side, it's a bit rare to have monsters have weapons and if they do, they usually aren't any better than just killing the creature outright. For instance, I'd say a goblin's shortbow is fragile but goblins are basically just as fragile (disregarding their AC)

[Man_Over_Game]

Problem is, the game doesn't have streamlined mechanics for sundering.

Sure, the DM can fill in the gaps, but at that point, he might as well be making a called-shot system with nothing to refer to for balance.

In many instances, destroying a player's weapon cripples them, and it'd be a frustrating thing if it happened consistently. Similarly, crippling an enemy's weapon could be too good of a strategy for something that would be available to attempt every turn.

It's also kinda boring, as it's not a temporary impact. The enemy goes from Hard to Easy, with no real way of recovering from it (unlike Saving Throws or battlefield spells). It's permanent, and there are very few effects in the game that use that word.

Put it this way: Sundering has to be so bad that, with most characters and in most circumstances, you're better off attacking normally. Keeping attacks as the baseline is the only way you'd be able to keep some semblance of sanity to your games. Otherwise, you're playing rocket tag with your weapons until someone rolls poorly and becomes effectively naked.

What you want is for a player to see the opportunity to sunder something and make a difficult choice, rather than an automatic one. Having more options only worsens a game if you don't have to use all of them.

[Asisreo1]

Problem is, the game doesn't have streamlined mechanics for sundering.

Sure, the DM can fill in the gaps, but at that point, he might as well be making a called-shot system with nothing to refer to for balance.

In many instances, destroying a player's weapon cripples them, and it'd be a frustrating thing if it happened consistently. Similarly, crippling an enemy's weapon could be too good of a strategy for something that would be available to attempt every turn.

I mean, it seems rather streamlined. "I target their plate mail armor." "I target their sword." The DMG gives the AC for objects and hp values based on it's size and resilience. It's not unlike targeting a door for an attack.

If a player only has one instance of that weapon, I don't feel sympathy. Weapons break and it's realistic to have a spare in case it does.

It's also not that strong because a player is basically doing 0 real damage to attempt to break a sword which has an AC of 19 if it's a typical iron/steel sword which means they're likely to miss at low levels. Most enemies have backup weapons. If it's a thrown weapon like a javelin or spear, they have 2d4 of them so it may even be a wasted action in practice. Creatures that have natural weapons and armor are completely immune to sunder. And creatures that have manufactured weapons and no thrown/distance options like the cultist aren't worth hitting their weapons anyways unless you wanted to keep them conscious without them being able to attack. If the party finds a scenario where sundering armor truly impacts the fight, I feel inclined to reward them of it. It's not like they can do it to the giant apes in the next fight.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, it seems rather streamlined. "I target their plate mail armor." "I target their sword." The DMG gives the AC for objects and hp values based on it's size and resilience. It's not unlike targeting a door for an attack.

If a player only has one instance of that weapon, I don't feel sympathy. Weapons break and it's realistic to have a spare in case it does.

It's also not that strong because a player is basically doing 0 real damage to attempt to break a sword which has an AC of 19 if it's a typical iron/steel sword which means they're likely to miss at low levels. Most enemies have backup weapons. If it's a thrown weapon like a javelin or spear, they have 2d4 of them so it may even be a wasted action in practice. Creatures that have natural weapons and armor are completely immune to sunder. And creatures that have manufactured weapons and no thrown/distance options like the cultist aren't worth hitting their weapons anyways unless you wanted to keep them conscious without them being able to attack. If the party finds a scenario where sundering armor truly impacts the fight, I feel inclined to reward them of it. It's not like they can do it to the giant apes in the next fight.

AC doesn't scale accurately, as your hit bonus outpaces AC rather quickly.

On top of that, an enemy's AC may increase with CR, but their gear may not.

Consider this: Level 2 Team is against a Gladiator, a pretty lethal fight for a low level team. Cleric casts Bless on the Barbarian, Barbarian uses Reckless Attack against the spear, total bonus to hit is about ~+6 against an AC of 19.

That is a 70% chance for success to cripple a CR 2 monster with a level 1 spell slot, a single attack, and a repeatable level 2 Barbarian feature. This will probably get a bit more ridiculous in about 3 more levels, or if the Barbarian just decided to go dual-wielding.

So what's the solution? Make a wooden spear harder to break? Make all of your enemies have multiple sets of weapons?

[Asisreo1]

AC doesn't scale accurately, as your hit bonus outpaces AC rather quickly.

On top of that, an enemy's AC may increase with CR, but their gear may not.

Consider this: Level 2 Team is against a Gladiator, a pretty lethal fight for a low level team. Cleric casts Bless on the Barbarian, Barbarian uses Reckless Attack against the spear, total bonus to hit is about ~+6 against an AC of 19.

That is a 70% chance for success to cripple a CR 2 monster with a level 1 spell slot, a single attack, and a repeatable level 2 Barbarian feature. This will probably get a bit more ridiculous in about 3 more levels, or if the Barbarian just decided to go dual-wielding.

So what's the solution? Make a wooden spear harder to break? Make all of your enemies have multiple sets of weapons?
Gladiators are CR 5 and they have spears which means they have 2d4 of them according to the MM's introduction about ammunition.

Perhaps you mean Berserker...if that's who you mean then...well, there is no solution because it's not a problem. It's the fault of the berserker for carrying one weapon on him, just as it would be for the PC's.

If they work together to sunder an enemy's weapon, I'd congratulate them. Of course, I'd never run a Berserker solo, he'd probably grab a spear from his tribal warrior buddies. They still managed to defang a threat and I'm all for it. I'm not worried about how they killed my CR # monster as long as they killed it dead. Most of my combats aren't powerful, but they're dangerous because I put enemies in really strategic positions with strong synergy between them. After I make an encounter, I don't care if they almost tpk'd or breezed through it.

The strategy isn't foolproof and it still expends resources so they can't do it forever.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There's no such thing as a sunder attack in 5e.

Attacking objects is covered very briefly on page 185 of the PHB. It basically says the DM arbitrarily decides the AC and hit points of objects, and whether a given object would be resistant or immune to a given type of damage. The DMG also covers that on pages 246-247, an object's AC isn't how hard it is to hit, but rather how hard it is to damage. So sure, you could try to use your sword to attack the opponent's plate armor, but your DM may just tell you that the steel armor is immune to your sword's damage, because it's been specifically designed to stop sword attacks. Or he may decide that it has 20+ hp and resistance to nonmagical damage, and with a 19 AC (21 if the wearer has a shield), attacking it is a complete waste of time.

[DrKerosene]

I’ve got a mental image of a level 5+ HOrc Barbarian recklessly attacking worn armor with a great-axe and doing 0 damage to the person wearing it.


The spell Heat Metal lets you target worn armor (or held objects), and it still does no damage to the objects (up to 20d6 fire damage should do something, no?)


Since Shatter would let you destroy an object that was disarmed from an enemy (like their weapon), I would probably allow PCs to sunder things if they asked (just not worn armor). I’d be pretty pleased if my Players were to ask such questions as to result in a team plan to disarm a boss and destroy their weapon/shield/casting focus/etc.

[Desamir]

AC doesn't scale accurately, as your hit bonus outpaces AC rather quickly.

On top of that, an enemy's AC may increase with CR, but their gear may not.

Consider this: Level 2 Team is against a Gladiator, a pretty lethal fight for a low level team. Cleric casts Bless on the Barbarian, Barbarian uses Reckless Attack against the spear, total bonus to hit is about ~+6 against an AC of 19.

That is a 70% chance for success to cripple a CR 2 monster with a level 1 spell slot, a single attack, and a repeatable level 2 Barbarian feature. This will probably get a bit more ridiculous in about 3 more levels, or if the Barbarian just decided to go dual-wielding.

So what's the solution? Make a wooden spear harder to break? Make all of your enemies have multiple sets of weapons?

To be fair, couldn't you accomplish the same thing with one Battle Master maneuver?

[Man_Over_Game]

To be fair, couldn't you accomplish the same thing with one Battle Master maneuver?

Yes, but that's with a resource.

If you add something of tactical value into a game, you have to introduce a strong enough reason not to do it. Otherwise you're not adding any more options, just changing the ones you do use.

Consider shoving a target to knock them prone. We don't do it because it's not worthwhile in most situations, but it's always an option. You don't want the Attack action to follow the same pattern, otherwise you have a bunch of core bloat that nobody really cares about except a few niche builds.

Put another way, say you do add Sunder as a core rule. How do you add it so that if someone wanted to make a build around it, they'd need to go Battlemaster?

[Asisreo1]

Yes, but that's with a resource.

If you add something of tactical value into a game, you have to introduce a strong enough reason not to do it. Otherwise you're not adding any more options, just changing the ones you do use.

Consider shoving a target to knock them prone. We don't do it because it's not worthwhile in most situations, but it's always an option. You don't want the Attack action to follow the same pattern, otherwise you have a bunch of core bloat that nobody really cares about except a few niche builds.

Put another way, say you do add Sunder as a core rule. How do you add it so that if someone wanted to make a build around it, they'd need to go Battlemaster?
Sundering just isn't reliable. Sure, in certain fights, it could be amazing but most of the time, monsters don't have weapons to sunder or they can still attack without them. But disarming adds the dice to the attack roll, which makes it more precise. It also does damage directly to the enemy as opposed to doing no damage even if you successfully sunder. An enemy that gets sundered may just retreat, surrender, or negotiate. I wouldn't make an encounter that would end over one sundered equipment, though.

[MrStabby]

If I were to allow such a thing, which I probably wouldn't, I would make a it a strength check not an attack roll.

I just dont see being really dexterous as helping to smash apart an inanimate object. Probably with disadvantage if it is still being waved around.

I just need to envisage a combat now that would be more fun if you can do this than if you couldn't. This is proving to be the more challenging part.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't have a problem with the "break an object" rules as presented in he DMG, though I would give a worn/held object a bonus to its AC equal to it's user's dex mod (since those rules are explicitly calibrated for stationary objects) and in many cases the attacking weapon would be more likely to break than the object it's attacking. Taken together, this would mean such an attempt would rarely be worth the effort, but I wouldn't forbid my players from trying it.

[Asisreo1]

I mean, you could always just give the item resistance or immunity.

[Mellack]

The DMG rules for attacking objects are not for objects being held or used. They also are not very complete. This is clear in that the AC only depends on the material and they even point out it has no chance to dodge. Why would a steel dagger being wielded by a nimble rogue and a steel flagpole both have the same AC?

[Asisreo1]

The DMG rules for attacking objects are not for objects being held or used. They also are not very complete. This is clear in that the AC only depends on the material and they even point out it has no chance to dodge. Why would a steel dagger being wielded by a nimble rogue and a steel flagpole both have the same AC?
Because unless the rogue knows the enemy is going directly for the dagger, why would they try to move it? They probably use it for parrying anyways. The flagpole would have a higher AC. If the rogue knows the dagger is the object, the rogue can provide cover for it by placing it behind his back.

[Mellack]

Because unless the rogue knows the enemy is going directly for the dagger, why would they try to move it? They probably use it for parrying anyways. The flagpole would have a higher AC. If the rogue knows the dagger is the object, the rogue can provide cover for it by placing it behind his back.

The rogue moves it because you don't block with a dagger, or usually with a sword for that matter. You parry. That means deflecting the blow at an angle. You never want to take a blow directly on your weapon if you can because that damages the blade. Puts in nicks and such. A small change of angles makes blows slide off the blade. Anyone familiar with fighting with blades would do this, making it practically impossible to break their blade with a swing. If you look at historical weapons, you can see that. Those who wanted to try to break a weapon had to first bind it up. The rules assume that you can't just break something in someones hands. It is reasonable as you are far more likely to break someones grip than the metal sword in their hand.

You say the flagpole would have a higher AC. Why?

[Asisreo1]

The rogue moves it because you don't block with a dagger, or usually with a sword for that matter. You parry. That means deflecting the blow at an angle. You never want to take a blow directly on your weapon if you can because that damages the blade. Puts in nicks and such. A small change of angles makes blows slide off the blade. Anyone familiar with fighting with blades would do this, making it practically impossible to break their blade with a swing. If you look at historical weapons, you can see that. Those who wanted to try to break a weapon had to first bind it up. The rules assume that you can't just break something in someones hands. It is reasonable as you are far more likely to break someones grip than the metal sword in their hand.

You say the flagpole would have a higher AC. Why?
I meant HP.

Either way, I'm not necessarily thinking of a parry dagger. Just a regular dagger that the rogue sometimes uses to parry. It would require an damage roll of 2d4 which is small but breaking a dagger with a direct hit isn't easy for a creature at AC 19 anyways and the rogue probably has another. I'd also just make it immune to slashing and piercing attacks so even those solid hits slide off unless it's a club or something. A sword would probably be medium (the size of a lute) and have additional immunity to slashing and piercing and resistance to bludgeoning. Meaning the only way to sunder would be a blunt hit with a bludgeoning weapon at AC 19 and needs to do at least an average of 20 damage.

Of course, magic attacks are good, except for psychic and poison. Iron/steel might have a couple of resistances to cold, fire, lightning and whatever else.

I mean, we can add complexity if we desire, but we can do so to add flat-footed AC and all the other stuff that adds to realism for the sake of realism.

[Mellack]

I meant HP.

Either way, I'm not necessarily thinking of a parry dagger. Just a regular dagger that the rogue sometimes uses to parry. It would require an damage roll of 2d4 which is small but breaking a dagger with a direct hit isn't easy for a creature at AC 19 anyways and the rogue probably has another. I'd also just make it immune to slashing and piercing attacks so even those solid hits slide off unless it's a club or something. A sword would probably be medium (the size of a lute) and have additional immunity to slashing and piercing and resistance to bludgeoning. Meaning the only way to sunder would be a blunt hit with a bludgeoning weapon at AC 19 and needs to do at least an average of 20 damage.

Of course, magic attacks are good, except for psychic and poison. Iron/steel might have a couple of resistances to cold, fire, lightning and whatever else.

I mean, we can add complexity if we desire, but we can do so to add flat-footed AC and all the other stuff that adds to realism for the sake of realism.

You kinda made my point. If you are giving most things resistance and immunity, there is no reason to even do it in the first place. Instead of setting up trap options, just say it can't be done normally.

[Asisreo1]

You kinda made my point. If you are giving most things resistance and immunity, there is no reason to even do it in the first place. Instead of setting up trap options, just say it can't be done normally.
But it can. I don't make options to keep people from doing it, I just do what makes sense in my perspective. The sword might not be immune or resistant to acid damage, so if they can find some way to do that, they're my guest.

The option is there and even with resistance, it's possible to break a sword with a large amount of bludgeoning force. I'd tell the players how it works, of course, so that they won't waste their time on a bad tactic. However, if they were to, say, target someone's lantern which I'd call a tiny glass object with vulnerability to bludgeoning damage...well, now they've opened up a more dynamic way to play.

They may be more inclined to use safer methods of light, then.

Sundering a mage's spellcasting component can also be greatly debilitating. He may have extras but if he runs out, they've dealt with him in an effective manner. Some spellcasters don't use material components, however.

See how this can change the tactical perspective of battle? Should we try targeting a weapon? Is it worth it? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.