Post/Author/DateTime	Post
equilibrium17 10-13-06, 01:35 PM	Apologies if this has been covered before. Searching this forum is time-consuming and problematic. So. . . does anyone else find the RAW for weapons size and Sundering a bit odd? Here’s the part of the rules I’m talking about: 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. Step 3 Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield. If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage. So why should 2-handed weapons get a bonus on the opposed roll to determine if the Sunder attempt makes contact and deals damage? And why should light weapons get a penalty? It makes sense that a larger, heavier weapon would be better, on average, at breaking another weapon, shield, etc. *once you make contact.* But this is already reflected in the (generally) higher damage that 2H weapons cause, as well as the 1.5 STR bonus to damage they allow. If anything, I would think a smaller, lighter weapon should be better at making contact on the sunder attempt (or avoiding contact -- i.e., winning the opposed roll.) A light weapon would just be less likely to actually cause substantial damage to another weapon. But that’s what damage dice are for. Take a look at two opposite case examples: Case 1: Sunderer is armed with a light weapon, say a hand axe. Defender has a 2-H weapon like a polearm. Under RAW, the Sunderer effectively takes a -8 penalty to the opposed roll, making such an attack highly unlikely to even reach the step of rolling damage, much less causing enough damage to bypass hardness, unless the Sunderer has a much higher attack bonus. Case 2: Sunderer is armed with a 2-H weapon, say a Greataxe. Defender has a dagger. Sunderer now gets an effective +8 bonus to make contact on the sunder attempt, making contact very likely. Furthermore, since the battleaxe causes lot's 'o damage and allows a 1.5xSTR bonus to damage, it's more likely to get through hardness and actually cause damage. This seems completely bass-ackwards to me. If anything, it seems to me that a relatively light, fast hand axe would be better at making contact with the haft of a polearm, albeit not as good at actually chopping through it. Conversely, I would think it would be very hard to make solid contact on a quick, light dagger with a big, heavy greataxe. Though once the greataxe does make solid contact, it should stand a very good chance of breaking the blade. I am of a similar mind about the size bonus/penalties. Why is it that an Ogre's Greatclub has an easier time making contact with a halfling's rapier? If it actually hits the rapier, sure, the club will probably smash it to bits. But I see no reason to give larger creatures a bonus on making contact with Sunder attempts in the first place. At any rate, I’m thinking about just house ruling the weapon size modifier part of the Sunder rules away. Larger, higher damage weapons would still be better at sundering, but only because they cause more damage; they just wouldn’t be any better at making solid contact and getting to the step of rolling sunder damage. Thoughts/opinions? Anybody else tried anything like this?
ShinAkuma2 10-13-06, 01:50 PM	It's not a question of simply "making contact". When using a 2-handed weapon, you can easily parry an attack. Light weapons, not so much.
equilibrium17 10-13-06, 01:59 PM	It's not a question of simply "making contact". When using a 2-handed weapon, you can easily parry an attack. Light weapons, not so much. My own experience as a martial arts and SCA enthusiast runs completely counter to this. Some 2-hand weapons are good for parrying (Quarterstaff, for example), other are crappy (Greataxe). Same goes for Light weapons. Sai and many dagger designs, for example, are actually specifically designed to be good for parrying larger, heavier weapons, and disarming or breaking them (with a double-bind twist).. In general, I don't see either category as intrinsically better at parrying or sundering.
starfire311 10-13-06, 03:44 PM	you must remember that an attack roll in DnD is not just about making contact, it is making contact solid enough to actually cause damage...
Damionte 10-13-06, 03:56 PM	There is no make contact roll with Sunder. Once the attacker decides he's sundering there is contact. The roll is about larger weapons, and bigger foes being better able to do a or withstand a sunder attempt. Makes enough sense to me. If oyu want the benifits of a small weapon for TWF but the ower of a big weapon for sundering use a double weapon.
Damionte 10-13-06, 03:57 PM	There is no make contact roll with Sunder. Once the attacker decides he's sundering there is contact. The opposed roll is a cmbination of the two combatants skill + brute strength+strength of thier weapons. Makes enough sense to me. If oyu want the benifits of a small weapon for TWF but the ower of a big weapon for sundering use a double weapon.
xerric 10-13-06, 09:58 PM	I agree with the rules being askew on the for light weapons. An example is a Dervish who can treat scimitars as light weapons normally a scimitar would not be considered a light weapon but I still take the -4. I understand its to nerf them down a bit, thats why I countered by making an +1 adamantine scimitar with a shatter enchantment (gives me sunder) so I still get the negatives but if I hit I ignore hardness less then 20 and deal straight hp to things.
Xeviat-DM 10-13-06, 11:29 PM	There is no make contact roll with Sunder. Once the attacker decides he's sundering there is contact. The roll is about larger weapons, and bigger foes being better able to do a or withstand a sunder attempt. Makes enough sense to me. If oyu want the benifits of a small weapon for TWF but the ower of a big weapon for sundering use a double weapon. Sunder requires an opposed roll, then you roll damage if you're successful. If you sunder a worn object, you make an attack roll vs. the object's AC. That sounds like a contact roll to me dude. I think this is a little odd too. It should be harder to hit a smaller weapon, but the smaller weapon has less hp and less damage so will stink at sundering still.
ShinAkuma2 10-14-06, 01:43 AM	Same goes for Light weapons. Sai and many dagger designs, for example, are actually specifically designed to be good for parrying larger, heavier weapons, and disarming or breaking them (with a double-bind twist).. Uh-huh, which is why the sai (and other pronged weapons) get bonuses to disarm.
Silverthumb128 10-14-06, 02:31 AM	My own experience as a martial arts and SCA enthusiast runs completely counter to this. And my own experience as a roleplayer/gamer runs completely counter to this, as real-life examples and logic mean absolutely nothing compared to simplified, less complex number-crunching. Also, a Wooden-Hafted weapon, like a polearm, has less Hardness than a metal-hafted weapon, like a Mace, thus making them easier to Sunder.
Ryu Katsuragi 10-14-06, 05:04 PM	I agree with the rules being askew on the for light weapons. An example is a Dervish who can treat scimitars as light weapons normally a scimitar would not be considered a light weapon but I still take the -4. I understand its to nerf them down a bit, thats why I countered by making an +1 adamantine scimitar with a shatter enchantment (gives me sunder) so I still get the negatives but if I hit I ignore hardness less then 20 and deal straight hp to things. I don't have my copy of Complete Warrior on me, but doesn't Dervish treat scimitars as light weapons for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting penalties and Weapon Finesse? (I;m sure that's how I read it last time I did...)
zuul88 10-23-06, 03:34 AM	The rule seems right to me. Your weapons are making contact the whole time. Your attack roll is just to place that One hit in. It is not an attack on the person. You are just choosing to focus the strike on the weapon instead of getting past it to strike the owner. Thats why it is an opposed check not an attack roll. Two handed weapons are inherently stronger then say a raiper. A larger opponent is able to bring more power, force, leverage, whatever to bear upon the smaller foe. Just imagine your dagger wasnt in the way. I would be willing to forgo the the bonus if I could just hit the enemy for moving his dagger out of the way. Think stuff through to its logical conclusion. Nathan White Pride World Wide
Omniblade 10-23-06, 07:03 AM	I agree with the last post, remember an attack roll is not a single swing, it's 6 seconds, of attacks going back and forth with movement going on as well, not two people standing exactly 5 feet apart watching a clock taking a swipe every 6 seconds abstract systems make real world logic very hard to apply the base desire of the rule is clear though, that bigger weapons are better than little ones when it comes to breaking things
zuul88 10-25-06, 08:50 PM	I agree with the last post, remember an attack roll is not a single swing, it's 6 seconds, of attacks going back and forth with movement going on as well, not two people standing exactly 5 feet apart watching a clock taking a swipe every 6 seconds abstract systems make real world logic very hard to apply the base desire of the rule is clear though, that bigger weapons are better than little ones when it comes to breaking things Thanks for that, people seem to think combat is actually sitting around waiting for your turn to come up. You go then bill then me. They then try to aplly that thinking to how the rules are made. The rules are made the way they are for a reason. To a. keep game balance and b. to reflect the game logic which is based on the logic of how reality works.(not counting all the elves haflings and orges running around.) Nathan White Pride World Wide
Neutronium_Dragon 10-25-06, 10:28 PM	It's about hitting hard enough to penetrate defenses, as noted above. If it was solely a matter of "making contact" then it'd be a touch attack rather than a normal attack roll.
Grimmsfeld 10-25-06, 11:26 PM	It's about hitting hard enough to penetrate defenses, as noted above. If it was solely a matter of "making contact" then it'd be a touch attack rather than a normal attack roll.Yeah, except there's no such thing as opposed touch attacks.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 10-25-06, 11:38 PM	By the way, a handaxe isn't going to be moving much faster than a battleaxe or a greataxe. They all move at similar speeds.