Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 03-08-07, 05:41 PM	<edit: The following post was original presented having missed the errata and FAQ that kills this idea.> The normal view of sunder is that it is an anti-social activity that kills loot and access, and excludes you from invites to future tables. Reviewing the craft arms and armor rules today, I came across this: you cannot damage a weapon or shield unless your weapon is the same plus or higher. In other words, you can self limit what you destroy by choosing your weapon. (DMG 222, top left) An adamantine greatsword (non-magical), cannot sunder a magical weapon that has a +1 enhancement bonus. Grab a masterwork weapon and sunder away..the only thing you'll destroy is non-loot. :) What am I missing? <edit: I'm missing the FAQ p. 41 that says the DMG is wrong> David
LachlarlanIII 03-08-07, 06:10 PM	If you have Improved Sunder, you can always test if a weapon is magical by attempting to sunder it. Use a Silver Longsword. Two-Hand said longsword. If the weapon breaks in one hit, it probably wasn't magical. If it doesn't, it probably is. Resoning is each + of bonus adds hp and a few points of hardness to an object. Basically, if it breaks from minimal damage, it's nonmagical.
Daverius 03-08-07, 07:02 PM	Sunder is not a bad tactic. It allows you to take combat brute, which is a neat tactical feat from Complete warrior. The way I veiw Sunder is the dumb fighters way to disarm. There are many things that can be sundered that won't hurt the party. For example, cleric holy symbols, mages spell component pouches, A giant's great club. Many bad guys have non magical weapons. Besides in a pinch, like "this looks like it could be a tpk," then I'm sure your table won't mind if you sunder the bbeg's magical weapon. Sundering is great against enemy archers too. Daverius
JamesMaissen 03-08-07, 07:17 PM	Sunder is not a bad tactic. It allows you to take combat brute, which is a neat tactical feat from Complete warrior. The way I veiw Sunder is the dumb fighters way to disarm. Well see if another party member will do 'trash detail' for your disarming. If no one is willing to pick up the weapons you will disarm then sunder away. If they get mad then next time they're more likely to volunteer to pick up the weapons... ;) -James
Cardinal Teplin 03-08-07, 07:48 PM	I've never understood the idea behind sundering a magician's spell component pouch. Why is the pouch out in the open in the first place? Why would sundering the pouch destroy the contents? Sure it's an inconvenience that all the spell components aren't in a handy container, but they're stll _there_. Why not just hit the mage? The last time my spell caster got caught without his pouch he canabalised his lunch to get components for 3 different spells.
JamesMaissen 03-09-07, 02:26 AM	I've never understood the idea behind sundering a magician's spell component pouch. Why is the pouch out in the open in the first place? Why would sundering the pouch destroy the contents? Sure it's an inconvenience that all the spell components aren't in a handy container, but they're stll _there_. Why not just hit the mage? The last time my spell caster got caught without his pouch he canabalised his lunch to get components for 3 different spells. In order: 1> If it's not accessible then it's a move action to get into hand. 2> No, but it would scatter them. And then it would be a move action to pick them up which would provoke. 3> You have sundering cleave and want to use it? -James
RanielK 03-09-07, 04:26 AM	Besides in a pinch, like "this looks like it could be a tpk," then I'm sure your table won't mind if you sunder the bbeg's magical weapon. Sundering is great against enemy archers too. Daverius Except, I've seen way too many guys introduce themselves as Sunderificous and their favorite tactic tends to be: Round 1 charge + sunder Round 2 full attack sunder action Round 3 sunder anything that survived rounds 1 & 2 Then they look up at the rest of the tables stunned looks of disbelief at all the loot that is destroyed and say, "er, it looked like a potential TPK guys." I've got no problems with being neck deep in hostiles, two guys down and the cleric aint lookin' so hot and the sunder monster breaks out the +3 sundermatic. I only complain when the sundering starts at round 1 of every combat. My motto is "kill the guy not his gear."
Gwumph 03-09-07, 05:02 AM	Someone mentioned it earlier, but I guess it got overlooked. Sunder is great for enemy clerics. Sunder their holy symbol and ALOT of their spells are gone. Ditto for spell pouch. Sunder is one fo those feats that require a player with out of box thinking to use it properly. Anyone can whack at a sword or shield, But to be smart enough to sunder the saddle on the mount the BBEG is riding, that is an awesome thing. Many monster weapons are non-magical so sunder works just fine for them. Now I am not sure about this but the in the latest LGCS there are rules for repairing broken magical items. So you might be able to repair it before the end of the adventure or at least have access to a broken veriosn which you can buy and then repair. Can anyone confirm that rule?
katrick 03-09-07, 10:33 AM	explain please why can someone take a called shot on an item (sunder) but i can't do the same with Disintigrate? if i have the sunder feat can i now disintigrate it?(with obviuos prereqs) katrick
GorTeX 03-09-07, 11:46 AM	the original post didn't take into account the errata; Hardness and Hit Points Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222 Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar information for shields on page 217. Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points. (btw, the deleted sentence says, "An Attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.")
Timlagor 03-09-07, 11:54 AM	explain please why can someone take a called shot on an item (sunder) but i can't do the same with Disintigrate? if i have the sunder feat can i now disintigrate it?(with obviuos prereqs) katrick I know of nothing in the rules to preclude casting disintergrate on a held item.
Howie23 03-09-07, 12:00 PM	the original post didn't take into account the errata; Right. Which is why I editted it when someone pointed it out. I'll edit again to avoid folks heading down the wrong path. :) Thanks for providing the detail, though. David
trollbill 03-09-07, 12:06 PM	Question: Adamantine items have one third more hit points than their normal versions. Greatswords have 10 hp. A +1 bonus adds 10 hp to a magic item. Does a +1 Adamantine Greatsword have 23 hp or 27 hp?
bitznarf 03-09-07, 12:08 PM	Question: Adamantine items have one third more hit points than their normal versions. Greatswords have 10 hp. A +1 bonus adds 10 hp to a magic item. Does a +1 Adamantine Greatsword have 23 hp or 27 hp? I would think this would follow the normal stacking rules in D&D (x2 + x2 = x3). This makes sense to me as the adamantine bonus HP are representing the base weapon getting stronger. The 10 hp from the +1 bonus is making the weapon stronger because it is um.. more magical. Regardless of the term you want to use there, it isn't based off the original weapon.
GorTeX 03-09-07, 12:10 PM	Adamantine Greatsword would be Hardness 20, 13 HP. Making it +1 brings it to Hardness 22, 23 HP.
trollbill 03-09-07, 01:05 PM	Adamantine Greatsword would be Hardness 20, 13 HP. Making it +1 brings it to Hardness 22, 23 HP. Just to throw in a monkey wrench, what about if you have a +1 Greatsword and make it Adamantine, after the fact. Believe it or not, I actually have a favor on an AR that lets me do that.
jstorrie 03-09-07, 02:35 PM	If you want to sunder, why not just carry scrolls of mending?
LachlarlanIII 03-09-07, 02:44 PM	If you want to sunder, why not just carry scrolls of mending? Because it doesn't restore a magic item's properties if one is sundered.
LachlarlanIII 03-09-07, 02:46 PM	Adamantine Greatsword would be Hardness 20, 13 HP. Making it +1 brings it to Hardness 22, 23 HP. The SRD says each + to a weapon adds 1 HP and 1 Hardness. So that would be 21 Hardness, 14 HP unless there's been an errata.
jstorrie 03-09-07, 03:25 PM	make whole restores a magical item to good-as-new, and is only Cleric 2. A sundering character could build around including that.
Redfist 03-09-07, 03:40 PM	make whole restores a magical item to good-as-new, and is only Cleric 2. A sundering character could build around including that. Quoting the spell make whole: "The spell does not restore the magical abilities of a broken magic item made whole, and it cannot mend broken magic rods, staffs, or wands." Sunder as a PC? Just say no. :D
Zanzibax 03-09-07, 04:39 PM	Well see if another party member will do 'trash detail' for your disarming. If no one is willing to pick up the weapons you will disarm then sunder away. If they get mad then next time they're more likely to volunteer to pick up the weapons... ;) -James This is what Unseen Servant is for...It's just one of the most powerful spells in the game. I never play an arcane caster without one! (at least)
Munkwunk 03-09-07, 10:40 PM	Sunder as a PC? Just say no. No. I mean, no, I am not giving up my ability to sunder. As someoen who plays a barbarian with Combat Brute, I can tell you that the tactic is 100% viable in many situations and I am sick and tired of hearing people complain when I "destroy the treasure". Scenario 1: Flurrying monk with a +1 wounding kama starts hacking away at the party's Constitution scores at a rate of ~3 Con damage per round. I bust the thing. The party stops taking Con damage and, as a result, does not die horribly at the hands of the Devils who are waiting just around the cornr. Result number two is that the Wizard at the table complains that I just destroyed his treasure / crafting access ($10 says that wizard would never have any reason to craft a wounding weapon anyway) and the other players complain that now it can't be on the AR (there wre no monks around to bother using a kama anyway). Petty complaining. They'd rather be shredded to death by that thing than risk losing access. Scenario 2: 3 advanced spriggins, each with scythes, start whooping the crap out of our party. They do something to the tune of 100 damage in *one round* to the party's Paladin. What do I do? I start busting the scythes. Once they were out of the picture, the spriggins were completely neutralized and began to flee. Luckily for me the scythes were only masterwrok and that I aws playing at a table with some decent folks who probably wouldn't hav ecomplained regardless (hey, I saved them from a world of pain and a LOT of lost healing resources before heading in to the final encounter on the same day). Scenario 3: I spot a giant wielding a large weapon. I get enlarged and then immediately bust the giant's weapon. The result: I don't take 3d8+STR(1.5) several times in a row. I instead take 1d6+STR damage a couple of times. Valuable healing resources are saved because we aren't taking boat loads of damage. Would disarming do the same trick? Maybe. It's nto permanent, and there are ways for the enemies to get their items back. It's not a big deal to sunder once in a while, as long as the tactic is used sparingly and intelligently. I agree that someone who just charges in and starts blowing up weapons/loot is a nuisance, but on the occasion when I deem it necessary (such as taking Con damage from wounding/poisoned weapons) then I do not hesitate to do it. I would appreciate it if other players were understanding.
Japangirl 03-09-07, 10:49 PM	A +1 wounding weapon is a lot of treasure to sunder. Agreed, the Con damage is really not fun at all (I have a wounding weapon, I know all about it), but as long as someone has a restoration prepped it's not that big a deal. Now if there was serious risk of death for someone, sure, sunder away, but a +3 weapon is quite a bit of money to lose.
Munkwunk 03-09-07, 11:06 PM	The fact of the matter is that people's lives were at stake. 3 Con/round is a lot when the Wizard only has 10 Con, and Restoration isn't always an immediate option. The problem isn't with the sundering action itself, it lies with the way treasure and access work in LG. That one weapon isn't handed out to a single player at the table; it is sold and then opened for access to later purchase at full price. Despite the fact that no one person gets that item, it is entirely possible for one person to permanently destroy access to that for the entire party. Personally, I'd be more than willing to accept that I don't get access to the item as long as the rest of the table does, but that is unfortuantely not the way LG works. As someone who makes use of the sunder option, I feel like I am constantly playing a game of "Russian Roulette" when I make the decision to destroy an item. Is it valuable? Is it an AR access item? Would overcap cover the losses? Am I going to become a pariah if I do this? LG loot access is still a very competetive thing, despite the fact that it has been "fixed" since Year 2 or so. We no longer have people arguing about who gets what, but heaven forbid someone do anything that could potentially destroy an item that might possibly be on an AR!
Japangirl 03-09-07, 11:09 PM	Ah, see, that's the problem right there. 10 Con wizards are an abomination upon the Oerth!
copper_wyrmling 03-09-07, 11:22 PM	Ah, see, that's the problem right there. 10 Con wizards are an abomination upon the Oerth! But 12 Con sorcerers are all right, yes? Yes? -Azrien (who finally gave in and bought a Con-boosting amulet just before I could say, "Her level is equal to her constitution score") On the topic of the thread, I think people have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate the danger level of combats, and I think combining that with sunder can lead to a lot of unnecessary destruction of precious, precious loot. Sorry to munkwunk, but I'd be very nervous if a fighter turned up at my table and the player's first words were "my primary tactic is sundering". I like my magic items...
Eric Anondson 03-10-07, 01:18 AM	I'm not bothered so much with losing access on ARs from sundering. I'm more upset losing the treasure value from those +3 weapons. But sundering giant's clubs? Go chopping I say!
Munkwunk 03-10-07, 02:05 AM	Sorry to munkwunk, but I'd be very nervous if a fighter turned up at my table and the player's first words were "my primary tactic is sundering". I totally agree. I don't think anyone's primary tactic should be to sunder first and complain about loss of loot later. Several mods go by in which my barbarian doesn't use his sunder feats (which means he's not using TWO of the feats taken) but when it comes up and is necessary, it's very handy. I can understand peopel being upset when someone charges in and just starts breaking everything in sight; even with Sundering Cleave, that's rarely teh best option. However, there are times when breaking weapons is necessary, and when I pull out that tactic I don't think I should be berated for it.
King Kashue 03-10-07, 02:32 AM	However, there are times when breaking weapons is necessary, and when I pull out that tactic I don't think I should be berated for it. The litmus test should always be "did a given action save a PC's ass", if the answer is "yes", then it usually was the right thing to do...:D
Cardinal Teplin 03-10-07, 09:38 AM	I mean, no, I am not giving up my ability to sunder. ... but on the occasion when I deem it necessary (such as taking Con damage from wounding/poisoned weapons) then I do not hesitate to do it. I would appreciate it if other players were understanding. I suspect they would appreciate it if you were more understanding. It's a group game, and some form of agreement should be on the cards. Sundering weapons comes under the same category as attacking NPCs, giving away plot items, and freeing or killing prisoners. No matter how justified your own position is, it's still wrong to act without at least consulting the other players. It's entirely possible that you were entirely correct, and that at every table you are joined by players who just don't understand the game as well as you do. That your sense of the tactical situation is unmatched, and that you've been saving their characters lives in a way they simply aren't equipped to understand. It's possible... just not very likely. Without meeting you and your fellow players, its very hard to tell. Ultimately, someone would rather have their character die than have you sunder a weapon, then you should respect that. They may be wrong, but they are still your team mates and working with them is a higher priority to being right.
Timlagor 03-10-07, 11:03 AM	The crucial thing when you have a character like that is to discuss it before combat. At least your companions shouldn't be surprised then. Ideally you'll discuss it before the module starts so that if you really can't reach any agreement they at least have the option of playing it later elsewhere (not an issue if you're willing to agree -all else failing- not to sunder unless/until they give you permission ...you being a Lawful Barbarian of course and therefore bound to keep your word ;)) . The best argument for letting people have long discussions in combat is the assumption that the characters would have spent a significant proportion ofthe hours/days/weeks/months they've been travelling together 'talking shop': discussing tactics, situations, monsters, enemies and abilities they've seen and learnt. You can't really do that out of character because: a) You could easily spend the whole session on it (and still not finish or necessarily cover the situation that will actually aride even if one or more of the characters has previously fought a very similar combat) b) You'd be likely to spoil other modules. Obviously there are good arguments against letting the players talk lots in combat too. I do have characters who would rather have a serious risk of death than see a valuable doodad sundered. I even have one who would usually prefer to risk the whole mission than risk missing out on the loot. My Arcanists would certainly be upset if stuff got sundered before they'd had a chance to try some funky spells on the enemy. Occult Slayer 3 is certainly useful to a Sunderer ...and if you have a good bluff score you can sunder some magic stuff too ;)
Daverius 03-10-07, 03:58 PM	I suspect they would appreciate it if you were more understanding. It's a group game, and some form of agreement should be on the cards. Sundering weapons comes under the same category as attacking NPCs, giving away plot items, and freeing or killing prisoners. No matter how justified your own position is, it's still wrong to act without at least consulting the other players. It's entirely possible that you were entirely correct, and that at every table you are joined by players who just don't understand the game as well as you do. That your sense of the tactical situation is unmatched, and that you've been saving their characters lives in a way they simply aren't equipped to understand. It's possible... just not very likely. Without meeting you and your fellow players, its very hard to tell. Ultimately, someone would rather have their character die than have you sunder a weapon, then you should respect that. They may be wrong, but they are still your team mates and working with them is a higher priority to being right. I have to disagree with you, and I'm taking the side of Munkwunk. The player that ultimately would rather have their character die is not up to debate. In the situation that Munkwunk was talking about could of resulted in mutiple character deaths. I think sundering a con draining weapon was a good tactic, even if one player got upset because of loosing loot. I'm sure for every player that is upset, there will be player that would be happy. So it is a trade off. Now in Munkwunk's defense. He is not saying that he sunders first chance he gets. He has expressed that over and over. He uses sunder as a last resort when things are lookin grim. A flurrying monk with a con draining weapon appears to be a grim situation. Especially if it is your character taking the hits. For every person that plays a mod with the goal of treasure and loot, there is another player that plays with the goal of completing the mod and finishing adventures. And then there are tons of players in between. All of you are making it sound like that every player is the first one, only caring about loot. So like I said before, sundering as a sound tactic, ie saving the party, will result in some people being upset, and some people being happy. It's a trade off. Besides there are tons of enemies that don't use important magical weapons that can be sundered. And there are tons of things that can be sundered that would not hurt the party, ie spell component pouches, and holy symbols.
King Kashue 03-10-07, 04:21 PM	I have to disagree with you, and I'm taking the side of Munkwunk. The player that ultimately would rather have their character die is not up to debate. In the situation that Munkwunk was talking about could of resulted in mutiple character deaths. That's Teplin's point...If Munkwunk thinks that is what the situation is, but everyone else at the table disagrees, then for purposes of decision making, he's wrong. If you say "I think it's time for drastic measures" and five other people say "no, it's not, don't do that", guess what the proper action should be as a member of an adventuring party and as a person in an LG group...
Cardinal Teplin 03-10-07, 06:54 PM	I'm sure for every player that is upset, there will be player that would be happy. So it is a trade off. If that is the situation, then obviously you have to use your best judgement. But that's not the situation that was being described. Faced with an entire table that disagree with your tactic, you really need to at least try changing your tactic, just as you want them to try accepting yours. The same principle applies to any tactic with a drawback that hits the rest of the party, whether it's maximising damage at the expense of using up healing, to going for the maxmimum number of targets with a fireball, even if it means your own warriors caught in the blast. My wizard has a wide variety of fog and concealment effects. Unfortunately, I very rarely get to use them, because very few characters really want to adapt their own tactics to not being able to see the enemy, or eachother. When it works, it works really well, but as far as party cooperation goes, its a very hard sell.
GorTeX 03-11-07, 12:54 AM	The SRD says each + to a weapon adds 1 HP and 1 Hardness. So that would be 21 Hardness, 14 HP unless there's been an errata. There is errata. (see post 10 in this thread).. also the online SRD's have it correclty (+2 Hardness, +10 HP)
Daverius 03-11-07, 02:12 PM	If that is the situation, then obviously you have to use your best judgement. But that's not the situation that was being described. Faced with an entire table that disagree with your tactic, you really need to at least try changing your tactic, just as you want them to try accepting yours. The same principle applies to any tactic with a drawback that hits the rest of the party, whether it's maximising damage at the expense of using up healing, to going for the maxmimum number of targets with a fireball, even if it means your own warriors caught in the blast. My wizard has a wide variety of fog and concealment effects. Unfortunately, I very rarely get to use them, because very few characters really want to adapt their own tactics to not being able to see the enemy, or eachother. When it works, it works really well, but as far as party cooperation goes, its a very hard sell. I re-read his post. The whole table was against him. What you said makes sense. I personally thought it was a good tactic though, but then again I don't use kamas and it is not in the nature of my fighter type to use a wounding weapon.
GreatSiron 03-11-07, 04:44 PM	I personally have to admit that I adventure for access and loot. That said however I would not have minded that +3 weapon getting torn apart, since it was making it hard for me to get the REST of the treasure. If I don't finish the mod, there is no way I'll get access to everything. And if my CON score is a 5, I'm not going to finish the mod. And having to be raised from the dead is a lot more expensive than losing what might have well been overcap. So he made the right decision, even if the rest of the party didn't think so.
Japangirl 03-11-07, 05:35 PM	I personally have to admit that I adventure for access and loot. That said however I would not have minded that +3 weapon getting torn apart, since it was making it hard for me to get the REST of the treasure. If I don't finish the mod, there is no way I'll get access to everything. And if my CON score is a 5, I'm not going to finish the mod. And having to be raised from the dead is a lot more expensive than losing what might have well been overcap. So he made the right decision, even if the rest of the party didn't think so. You could also look at it as a Raise Dead is 5k gold. A +3 weapon is 18k, sells for 9k. So a Raise Dead is actually cheaper for the party than sundering the weapon. And if the weapon was over cap gold, so much the better! Raise Dead money can come from overcap. Also, it's ability damage, so it heals naturally (1 per night) and a Lesser Restoration will fix 1d4 of it. A druid, paladin, or cleric can cast it and likely has multiples prepped, since it's one of the better level 2 spells. Your Con score won't stay 5 for very long . . .
Samwise 03-11-07, 05:41 PM	You could also look at it as a Raise Dead is 5k gold. A +3 weapon is 18k, sells for 9k. So a Raise Dead is actually cheaper for the party than sundering the weapon. And if the weapon was over cap gold, so much the better! Raise Dead money can come from overcap. Heh. So what happens when fewer adventures have over cap gold, and that is reduced to token amounts?
Japangirl 03-11-07, 05:43 PM	Still cheaper for the party to pay for a Raise Dead than to lose a +3 weapon. It's 4k gold split between the party after the 5k for a Raise has been paid out.
King Kashue 03-11-07, 06:43 PM	You could also look at it as a Raise Dead is 5k gold. A +3 weapon is 18k, sells for 9k. So a Raise Dead is actually cheaper for the party than sundering the weapon. Still cheaper for the party to pay for a Raise Dead than to lose a +3 weapon. It's 4k gold split between the party after the 5k for a Raise has been paid out. Raise dead isn't just money though, it's a character level, and a significant amount of the player's time... One in-character loss vs. another is one matter. But when characters die, that's a player loss... If five people at the table say "yeah, someone is gonna die, sunder it" and one person says "wait, that's my treasure", guess whose course of action should be followed...Hint: it's the same as when five people say "don't do it" and one person says "I should do it"...
Japangirl 03-11-07, 06:57 PM	Depends. If the person about to die is fine with it, then I'd say go ahead and don't sunder. It's completely table-dependent and very situational. In the situation Munkwunk was describing, however (he thought he should sunder, the entire rest of the table including the person in danger told him not to), there is no question the correct course of action. If the person in danger says that dying is less painful than losing money, there is no question the correct course of action. If the person doesn't want to die, then and only then do you start even thinking about sundering.
Gallaway 03-11-07, 07:51 PM	The SRD says each + to a weapon adds 1 HP and 1 Hardness. So that would be 21 Hardness, 14 HP unless there's been an errata. there was
Timlagor 03-11-07, 09:58 PM	Raise dead isn't just money though, it's a character level, and a significant amount of the player's time... The player loses no time whatsoever. They have still played (and hopefully enjoyed) all the adventures that got them that level.
King Kashue 03-11-07, 10:24 PM	The player loses no time whatsoever. They have still played (and hopefully enjoyed) all the adventures that got them that level. You have clearly stated your opinion. I however, disagree with your opinion (as previously stated in my opinion). It's not a matter of losing enjoyment, since that obviously can't be lost, but if my character loses a level, it's not just a matter of money, it took me time to gain that level... I fall one level behind my friend's characters, it reduces my ability to contribute to tables with them. I am one level further away from the High Level campaign, requiring me to play more before I can retire my character and enjoy a different game experience. The time I spend doing that could be spent on another one of my characters, enjoying yet another different play experience. And so forth... So, as I said, I disagree that the player has lost nothing...
GreatSiron 03-12-07, 12:33 AM	You could also look at it as a Raise Dead is 5k gold. A +3 weapon is 18k, sells for 9k. So a Raise Dead is actually cheaper for the party than sundering the weapon. And if the weapon was over cap gold, so much the better! Raise Dead money can come from overcap. Also, it's ability damage, so it heals naturally (1 per night) and a Lesser Restoration will fix 1d4 of it. A druid, paladin, or cleric can cast it and likely has multiples prepped, since it's one of the better level 2 spells. Your Con score won't stay 5 for very long . . . First off, as it has been stated, I considered the level I would lose far more valuable than some weapon I'll never use, or even all the gold in the mod. If I lose one thing off an AR, big deal, even if the author did make the mistake of it being the biggest treasure (And this has happened to me more than once: the BBG got away, or in the case of a pair of displacer beasts, not following the tracks back to their lair for EVERYTHING). And if it wasn't, what about all the cool stuff the next encounter had that I didn't get to fight? I have never played with a cleric that prepped lesser or any restoration. (Or at higher APL's any clerics at all, which makes me wonder how Spike's lived this long.)
Timlagor 03-12-07, 02:00 AM	I don't disagree that the player would have lost something..just that what they lose is time. Incidentally I do have characters that would be much more concerned with completing the mission and consider money to be incidental. Some are also much more casual about death than others. Some people look upon death as an opportunity to: - play more games with that character before they have to retire - increase their gp/xp ratio. If you always play with the same people then you really shouldn't be having a problem with this issue ;) GS: do you not carry scrolls/potions of Lesser Restoration?
Redfist 03-12-07, 03:08 AM	However, there are times when breaking weapons is necessary, and when I pull out that tactic I don't think I should be berated for it. You see... that's what I don't get. If breaking weapons is necessary, how do all of the other groups of PCs playing that mod suceed without breaking the weapons? Did they cheat somehow and get around doing that necessary action? It's your character and you're free to play it as you wish, but you really shouldn't be surprised when other players get upset when you destroy access and throw away GP even if you believe you are doing so in a tactically sound way. You have a choice and choose to destroy the loot. They have a choice and choose to not by happy with you. Don't berate them for exercising the same right you have - choice.
King Kashue 03-12-07, 05:00 AM	You see... that's what I don't get. If breaking weapons is necessary, how do all of the other groups of PCs playing that mod suceed without breaking the weapons? Did they cheat somehow and get around doing that necessary action? Don't be obtuse... What is necessary for each table to succeed is going to be different... A higher powered table playing down is going to have very different needs than a low powered table playing up. A single large crit can create a "one more hit with that weapon and the character dies" scenario that no other table will face...There is no possible way anyone here can say "that wasn't necessary in such and such a situation" unless we were at the table and know all the elements in play... To treat this like some video game, where everything else is equal but the players, utterly misrepresents the reality of the experience, which is at it's very essence variable, and does very little to further the discussion...
GreatSiron 03-12-07, 09:45 AM	GS: do you not carry scrolls/potions of Lesser Restoration? I have to, but nine times out of ten, I have to use them on OTHER people, cause no one else bothers to buy any. Forget sundering. Baby-sitting other PC's who won't carry neccessary items, now that's a money sink.
LachlarlanIII 03-12-07, 10:02 AM	Ultimately, someone would rather have their character die than have you sunder a weapon, then you should respect that. They may be wrong, but they are still your team mates and working with them is a higher priority to being right. If they'd rather die, that's fine with me. I'd rather the item worth 2500gp be destroyed than have to pay 5000gp out of my pocket to get raised.
Redfist 03-12-07, 01:41 PM	Don't be obtuse... Don't insult. What is necessary for each table to succeed is going to be different... A higher powered table playing down is going to have very different needs than a low powered table playing up. A single large crit can create a "one more hit with that weapon and the character dies" scenario that no other table will face...There is no possible way anyone here can say "that wasn't necessary in such and such a situation" unless we were at the table and know all the elements in play... To treat this like some video game, where everything else is equal but the players, utterly misrepresents the reality of the experience, which is at it's very essence variable, and does very little to further the discussion... I am not treating this "like some video game" and never claimed to. He claimed that there are times when destroying the weapon is necessary. In the 200 or so LG mods I've played, I've never once seen where it was necessary. The players I've played with, either my normal group or random musterings at cons, have always seemed to find success without resorting to destroying the loot. Maybe I've been lucky. Every time. Each of the 200 or so adventures. However, I also tend to be a pretty strong believer in probabilities and statistics and when I see a rate of 0% with my experiences and also a 0% rate from the experiences of those I speak with in other venues, I tend to dispute how really truely necessary it is. I do however admit that maybe he believes it was necessary. My point is that just because he believed it, doesn't make it so. In the end he is free to make a choice - sundering the weapon. His fellow players are also free to make a choice - be displeased by his action. Choices have consequences. Period. To believe otherwise is foolish.
katrick 03-12-07, 01:43 PM	Lsr Rest is Pal 1 so buy a Pearl of Power 1 and give it to your Pally(1000gp open access) Munkwunk is not talking about a character death he's talking about a TPK ie no Xp, no gp, no more gaming for that character ever or the five others Sunder is a very useful addition to any table and the characters likely to benefit from it are usually the ones with Sunder, and the ones most likely to whinge are the ones most likely to charge in before the wizard can soften the baddies with area spells Furthermore all talk of overcap, Xp\gp loss, access etc are totally Meta-gaming and definately not valid for combat. Remembering that your character doesn't want to die knowing there will be overcap Errors can be made, Errors can be compounded, Errors can be justified, Forgotten and excused, but it can't be an Error until after it is done katrick
Daverius 03-12-07, 03:11 PM	Lsr Rest is Pal 1 so buy a Pearl of Power 1 and give it to your Pally(1000gp open access) Munkwunk is not talking about a character death he's talking about a TPK ie no Xp, no gp, no more gaming for that character ever or the five others Sunder is a very useful addition to any table and the characters likely to benefit from it are usually the ones with Sunder, and the ones most likely to whinge are the ones most likely to charge in before the wizard can soften the baddies with area spells Furthermore all talk of overcap, Xp\gp loss, access etc are totally Meta-gaming and definately not valid for combat. Remembering that your character doesn't want to die knowing there will be overcap Errors can be made, Errors can be compounded, Errors can be justified, Forgotten and excused, but it can't be an Error until after it is done katrick That is a great point to actually bring in the rping aspect. I know this is an age old debate on the boards, but can you be mad at a character who in their nature would sunder? I know in LG a player is supposed to play their character in a way that will not offend or upset others. So an example would be by playing an snobbish wizard that is only snobbish and insulting towards npcs. Whenever an opportunity comes to be overtly insutling to PC's the wizard can instead say something along the lines, "this talk is beneath me." Which allow the mod to move forward and the character to stay in character and one additional insulting remarks need to be made. So in the example of sundering. Party members are getting severely, hurt. The tactical party minded fighter might see it is a time to sunder the weapon causing the hurt. Gold be damned, the mission comes first! kind of attitude. The player can justify holding back his fighter's desire to sunder, but if another character is about to die, but the player doesn't mind since that could be more gp and experience later on. LIke Katrick said, that will be considered meta gaming talk. So how would the lawful good tactical fighter play that round?
Redfist 03-12-07, 03:23 PM	I agree. If the character would sunder - go for it. Do the sunder, etc. HOWEVER, don't be surprised/agitated when people are angry with you for the choice. The PCs may not want to adventure with the PC again and the players may not want to play with the player again. Did the sunderer do anything "wrong"? Of course not. He made a legal choice based on his/her world view. Reactions are sure to follow though... Similarly, I could have a buffing PC who hates gnomes. If a gnomish PC is also part of the party, there could be the potential of the buffer not buffing the gnomish PC. Is that "wrong"? No. Does it have consequences? Probably.
Rerednaw 03-12-07, 03:50 PM	Lsr Rest is Pal 1 so buy a Pearl of Power 1 and give it to your Pally(1000gp open access) Munkwunk is not talking about a character death he's talking about a TPK ie no Xp, no gp, no more gaming for that character ever or the five others ... Off-topic: Did they change the rules? Before 597 my mage was waiting until level 7 to craft POPs. Now with 597, he's waiting for AR access. Back on topic: I think sunder is great under-used tactic. I get yelled at a lot for my opinion. On the other hand, players fight a rust monster and just shrug.
GreatSiron 03-12-07, 05:13 PM	[/SIZE] Off-topic: Did they change the rules? Before 597 my mage was waiting until level 7 to craft POPs. Now with 597, he's waiting for AR access. Back on topic: I think sunder is great under-used tactic. I get yelled at a lot for my opinion. On the other hand, players fight a rust monster and just shrug. POP are AR access only, at least if I remember correctly. And the reason they don't start yelling because of the rust monster is cause the guy who wrote it isn't there to yell at. That and you can always prepare for a rust monster.
King Kashue 03-12-07, 06:04 PM	Don't insult. It's not an insult, it's a request (or a command, depending on how you wish to read it)... "You're acting obtuse" would be a personal statement, and still not an insult, but my opinion of the nature of your behavior (certainly not a complimentary opinion, but thinking something about your actions is not the same as delivering a personal insult independent of the discussion). I.e., You knew full well what his intended meaning was (since you were explicitly emphasizing the difference in usage between your post and his), and chose to respond in such a way as if you didn't recognize the context of his statement. That's being intentionally obtuse. It's not an insult to call it such. He claimed that there are times when destroying the weapon is necessary. In the 200 or so LG mods I've played, I've never once seen where it was necessary. And I hope you recognize the difference between your experience (however vast) and the full realm of possibility. Just because you have never experienced it does not mean that it has never happened... I do however admit that maybe he believes it was necessary. My point is that just because he believed it, doesn't make it so. Nor does your belief negate the possibility... In the end he is free to make a choice - sundering the weapon. His fellow players are also free to make a choice - be displeased by his action. Choices have consequences. Period. To believe otherwise is foolish. Quite true...also quite irrelevant, since no one is arguing otherwise... Throughout the thread a clear distinction is being drawn between a situation where one person disagrees with the whole table and a situation where everyone is in agreement. Indeed the central point most people (including me) are making is the importance for table discussion and agreement... However, none of that changes the fact that you cannot say "It is never necessary" nor can you say "You are wrong when you said it was necessary" because you lack the requisite information to make those claims... You can say: "I've never been in a situation where sundering was the only way to avoid character death" But you can't say: "You've never been in such a situation", because you cannot possibly know if someone has or has not unless you've played every game with them, and were privy to the full circumstances of every situation...
Redfist 03-12-07, 06:34 PM	It is entirely relavent. He is asking people to not berate him for his choice. I'm saying people have a right to disagree with his choice and verbalize it if they so choose. Do you disagree? That is the heart of my comment. Any diversions you put in about walking the line of insulting someone is irrelavent. My point is about accountability. Surely you can't argue against personal accountability?
Munkwunk 03-13-07, 02:26 AM	There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and berating them for their actions. I maintain my stance that sundering weapons is a valid tactic, not to be used lightly. Just because it is not a popular action doesn't mean it is worthless. For a character with the Improved Sunder/Combat Brute line of feats, it may indeed be a necessary tactic to survive certain encounters. Just because 99% of players don't possess those feats doesn't change that. It could be argued that Improved Sunder isn't a "necessary" feat at all in the entirety of the D&D realm, I suppose. Thena gain, there are a lot of valid feats/tactics which aren't necessary but make a character more flavorful/enjoyable to certain players. On a personal level, I certainly try hard not to step on other peoples' toes when I do choose to use the sunder option. In the case of the +1 wounding kama, little was said until after the fact; when the item showed up on the AR (and was subsequently crossed out by the GM) party members complained about losing access. Nobody said "Ooh, I want that wounding weapon for myself after this adventure is over!" That was several years ago. Nowadays, I still sunder when I find it to be a useful tactic. Any time I am about to do so, I do a quick check with the party members to see if they mind me destroying an item or two and, barring major objetions, I'll go ahead and do it. Personally, I don't mind losing a bit of treasure if it means surviving the combat/module with limited risk of casualties, but I have certainly learned that many people disagree with that viewpoint. To date, I've only successfully sundered one item which showed up on the AR (the kama) and near-sundered one item which I would have even kicked myself for busting had I been successful (a +1 spell storing heavy flail). Most of the time it's mook loot which only adds a tad to overcap. I think my point here has already been clearly illustrated, though. There are those of you who say "sundering is wrong and is never necessary, period" who would rather see characters die than see loot destroyed. I understand this is due in part to the way loot in D&D is valued; it often is more statistically viable to get a Raise Dead cast on a party member than it is to lose out on expensive item access. I personally find that line of thought distasteful, but I completely understand it and hold no ill will toward anyone who thinks that way. That being said, there are also those of us who are willing to play the game in a different way, even if it means gambling with our loot a bit. I can't speak for other sunder-monkeys, but I do try not to break anything that seems expensive (and occasionally I will even ask the GM if the loot looks "particularly shiny" to get a hint, or check with party members to see if they care too much or not). It's becoming much easier to tell what is junk (three spriggins all holding scythes? they're probably just mook weapons) and what is potential treasure (BBEG hitting you with a weapon that deals some type of bonus damage? definitely magical). I've learned to make judgement calls, I would encourage anyone else who uses sundering to learn the same, and I would encourage anyone who doesn't to at least respect hear us out when the topic arises.
Timlagor 03-13-07, 07:01 AM	I still think Occult Slayer 3 is the way to go ;) [..cos an OS wouldn't dream of breaking something magical now would they? :D] My characters will react differently to this behaviour. Some of them would most certainly berate you for sundering something pricey. Others would barely notice; I don't have one who would have trouble understanding the issue at all ...yet.