| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| danielinthewolvesden07-12-07, 10:40 PM | OK, all of a sudden my DM has started to get back into Sundering- and not just weapons, but backpacks, quivers and such like. Any suggestions? |
| Kurikin07-12-07, 10:49 PM | I got you a couple solutions 1. Get all your gear made out of adamantine 2. Stay out of melee range 3. Sunder his guys before they can sunder you If that doesn't work then you could just go ahead and sunder your DM. |
| kjenks07-12-07, 10:53 PM | Pick up the dice and be the DM for a while. |
| Colmarr07-12-07, 11:05 PM | Sundering is a perfectly valid tactic. The best counter-tactic is to kill the person doing the sundering. After all, while they're sundering your gear they're not actually doing any damage. Alternatively, you can use your AoOs (sunder provokes AoOs unless the attack has Improved Sunder) to try to disarm the attacker. Sundering becomes somewhat moot once you reach a level where magic items are common. The increase in hardness and hps scales pretty effectively. In the meantime, I recommend that you avoid weapons with wooden hafts. |
| Robotic_Christmass_Elf07-12-07, 11:33 PM | grrr, sunder :pbbbtt: Not that I can really talk, the thing most people remember from my Eberron game was the advanced hitdice rust monster. Anyhoo, there's a spell in the stronghold builders guidebook (yeah, obscure source I know, yeah, you probably don't have access to it) which makes items much tougher and lasts ages, so, depending on your level, that might help. There's also a spell that only raises hardness in Eberron, and which I think was a reprint from another book, and exists somewhere else. If you're replacing your stuff, get it made out of a material with higher hps and hardness, like adamantine or mithril, and then get it made by dwarves, as Dwarvencrafted (races of stone) will raise the items hardness & hp that little bit more (although you do have to pay extra for it). The other option being of course, if it becomes the default tactic of NPC's (as opposed to just something that comes up every now and then) you could talk to your DM about the fact that while different tactics can be nice for a change of pace, having things constantly destroying your stuff is actually really annoying, especially in a stuff quest game like D&D. |
| danielinthewolvesden07-12-07, 11:51 PM | Pick up the dice and be the DM for a while. I am. I DM on Friday and play on Monday. |
| Dheran07-13-07, 12:59 AM | In addition to the spell in Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, there's Hardening in Spell Compendium. This can add 10 to the hardness of any object, permanently, if cast by a 20th level mage. Just hire an NPC to do the job, for 1200 gp. |
| TheCobra07-13-07, 01:07 AM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. |
| MerlintheTuna07-13-07, 02:03 AM | For cheap, small things, just carry 3 or 4. For example, spell component pouches and holy symbols are often mentioned as being prime targets for sunder-happy characters... But they cost what, 1 gp each? Just strap them on to your body wherever you can, and you're good to go. |
| danielinthewolvesden07-13-07, 02:23 AM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. Exactly my point. |
| kjenks07-13-07, 11:30 AM | I am. I DM on Friday and play on Monday. So sunder his PC's stuff for a while and see how he likes it. Maybe he'll change his tune. |
| J_Vhad07-13-07, 01:10 PM | How do NPCs know what the PC has is valuble? Magic Items don't usually have giant price tags hanging off of them saying "+3 LONGSWORD, 20,000GP, Prices may vary" that everyone can see. Now obviously if the sword has got a glowing green aura and is sheathed in flames then it's worth something but that isn't all magical weapons. And most people wear non magical jewelry too, at least real people. As for the other stuff, why wouldn't they sunder simple things like holy symbols, spell comp pouches, quivers, ect.? They arn't expensive, and chances are your holy symbol isn't for their god as well. Now, if you're metagaming and having your character think "Everything I'm going to ever encounter is going to have riches beyond believe" then yes, you have a point, but Sunder is a perfectly valid option for most real people. Especially the lower leveled enemies who expect to get most of their money from their pay. |
| Polaris07-13-07, 01:26 PM | Guys, Using Sunder on Weapons and Armor is fine albeit a tactic that should be used sparingly by high level NPCs (loot factor). Also it's quite easy to protect yourself against this tactic simply by having better gear or better material (and thus harder to sunder). The problem comes with sundering items, since items can be attacked WITHOUT getting the protection of armor or shield (just size bonuses IIRC), and most items have very little hit points and hardness (even magical ones). It's just too easy. In most games I've played in, I point this out to the DM, and almost immediately a 'disarmament' agreement occures (same with MDJ which has a very similiar issue). -Polaris |
| rironin07-13-07, 01:46 PM | There are some hardening crystals for armor and weapons in the Magic Item Compendium, I believe. 'Course, if you use the crystals, you'll probably want to use one of the more brokenated ones instead of the hardening ones :P |
| Pentar07-13-07, 01:51 PM | grrr, sunder :pbbbtt: HAHAHAHA! I love that emoticon!!! :pbbbtt: I can't believe I didn't see it before! Anyway, as per the OP - unfortunately, Sundering is one of those things you just have to take up the bum. It's pretty hard to prevent without spending lots of money, having some luck, or just outright killing the bastard first :) But one other thing you can do if you're expecting a sunder is to ready an action on the Sunder attempt to do something back - Disarm, Trip or Sunder them right back. |
| RobbyPants07-13-07, 02:07 PM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. This seems like DM metagaming. He's basically designing an NPC with the attitude of "it doesn't matter what happens to me so long as you suffer". Then he's doing it over and over again. I can see doing this once, but doing it repeatedly is just plain mean. Tell him to stop being an asshat. |
| J_Vhad07-13-07, 02:41 PM | Well it depends largely on the NPCs in question. I mean if they are all Thieves Guild members two weapon fighting and for some reason are sundering everything than I can see a metagame issue there. On the other hand, it's completely reasonable for a tribe of Orcs to use the tactic of Victory through destruction. I mean afterall, when conquering other lands victory wins out over profit if you're used to being poor as dirt right? |
| Polaris07-13-07, 03:24 PM | Well it depends largely on the NPCs in question. I mean if they are all Thieves Guild members two weapon fighting and for some reason are sundering everything than I can see a metagame issue there. On the other hand, it's completely reasonable for a tribe of Orcs to use the tactic of Victory through destruction. I mean afterall, when conquering other lands victory wins out over profit if you're used to being poor as dirt right? I disagree. A tribe of Orcs would want trophies and loot, the same as any other 'primitive' tribe. Orcs are just as greedy as anyone else if not more so. -Poalris |
| TheCobra07-13-07, 03:29 PM | How do NPCs know what the PC has is valuble? They can see it's at least masterwork. At some levels, that should be enough, especially considering how poor NPCs are. In many case, at least in my campaigns, NPCs often know something about the PCs. They know famous bands of adventurers are finely equipped. As for the other stuff, why wouldn't they sunder simple things like holy symbols, spell comp pouches, quivers, ect.? They arn't expensive, and chances are your holy symbol isn't for their god as well. There's nothing wrong with that, but it seems fairly useless most of the time. It's easy to carry spare pouches and holy symbols. And there are many spells that only have verbal and somatic components. Especially the lower leveled enemies who expect to get most of their money from their pay. I agree it's more reasonable at lower levels. But then you're typically better off trying to kill your target. Weapons do a lot of damage at level 1. Also it's quite easy to protect yourself against this tactic simply by having better gear or better material (and thus harder to sunder). And there's alway aurorum. |
| Johnny_Angel07-13-07, 03:46 PM | I like sundering. It can be an effective way to cut off the power supply of a cleric or a wizard. (spell book, holy symbol) I do think it's a little crazy for every NPC to use the exact same tactics though. |
| Ozymandias V.07-13-07, 03:48 PM | Mmmmm, aurorum. Too bad you can't combine the properties of aurorum and adamantine. That would be a very sunder-resistant weapon. |
| Polaris07-13-07, 03:54 PM | I like sundering. It can be an effective way to cut off the power supply of a cleric or a wizard. (spell book, holy symbol) The problem is that sundering items is too easy because there is almost no way a PC can protect his items (especially against the massive damage that weapons do at higher levels). The tactic is broken (or at least bent). In addition, sundering a wizard's spellbook is pure metagaming on the DM's part since sundering a spellbook has NO IMPACT on the current battle...and Spellbooks are worth a lot of money! As for holysymbols, all this tactic does is encourage cleric PCs to carry 100 wooden holy symbols (which don't have any encumberance btw). I do think it's a little crazy for every NPC to use the exact same tactics though. That's because the DM is metagaming. -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-13-07, 04:03 PM | Mmmmm, aurorum. Too bad you can't combine the properties of aurorum and adamantine. That would be a very sunder-resistant weapon. With metalline, you can. The problem is that sundering items is too easy because there is almost no way a PC can protect his items (especially against the massive damage that weapons do at higher levels). It's still not usually in an NPC's interest to do this. Fighter types rarely know exactly what items do. He can chop off your probably magical belt, but that might not really hinder you. Why not kill you and take the valuable belt instead? |
| J_Vhad07-13-07, 04:47 PM | I disagree. A tribe of Orcs would want trophies and loot, the same as any other 'primitive' tribe. Orcs are just as greedy as anyone else if not more so. Are heads, ears, and the like not trophies? Trophies don't have to be valuable possesions that the heroes had. As for the other part, why do the orcs need it? A very common mentality for primitive tribes is "If my weapon breaks his, mine is mightier" and completely logical for stupid humanoids (orcs). Nothing keeps the orcs from having their clerics cast Make Whole on the weapons and shields the next day to arm more troops with, and there is a good chance the orcs will never know the item was magical to begin with. I still feel that it's a very valid tactic for orcs because they tend to be rash, reckless and chaotic. Why would they plan for spending money tomorrow when the battle is today. They can see it's at least masterwork. At some levels, that should be enough, especially considering how poor NPCs are. In many case, at least in my campaigns, NPCs often know something about the PCs. They know famous bands of adventurers are finely equipped. If the object is masterwork and they pass their appraise check, then yes. Most characters that are going to be sundering (barbs and fighters most often) don't have appraise as a class skill. Masterwork items are going to be either a 12 or 15, which means most of the time the hero sundering is going to have a 50% chance or less of realizing it's masterwork assuming he checks in the middle of a fight. That's because the DM is metagaming. And assuming everything and everyone is going to be carrying around a small fortune in their weaponry and shields/jewelry/random possesions isn't metagaming. The DM could be metagaming, or he could be just running a tribe of NPCs as they would think. We really didn't get a lot of the OP on what the NPCs are. It's still not usually in an NPC's interest to do this. Fighter types rarely know exactly what items do. He can chop off your probably magical belt, but that might not really hinder you. Why not kill you and take the valuable belt instead? Because it's hard to fight with you pants arond your ankles...duh! Alright, seriously though, the one character I have had that sundered things did it as a taunt type deal. Cutting away at things, then finally killing them off. That is merely one reason for sundering, but if the DM is good he'll keep you and the party on the wealth per level chart despite what tactics you use. As for NPCs, In my experience usually they end up targeting things like weapons , ammo, shields, ect. Or they target resources such as spellbooks, backpacks, ect. I've only seen them do the latter in war style games or when the party has been particularly bothersome to the baddies though. To most NPCs that would be sundering, loot shouldn't be their motivation, they usually are acting on command or being paid (ie guards and such). I fail to see how it's metagaming or uneffective for the BBEGs guard to sunder a characters sword. Disarms him for that fight, and chances are he won't be using it any time soon. |
| Ozymandias V.07-13-07, 05:16 PM | With metalline, you can. That depends on whether or not magical properties return when the weapon is put back together. But if they do, that is a very good point. |
| Polaris07-13-07, 06:35 PM | It's still not usually in an NPC's interest to do this. Fighter types rarely know exactly what items do. He can chop off your probably magical belt, but that might not really hinder you. Why not kill you and take the valuable belt instead? Not even if the NPCs are a primitive Orc Tribe? That would be news to DMs like Vhad. It also neatly illustrates the problem. You are TRUSTING that the DM won't metagame on this issue, because it is a good way to hose PCs even if it's not in the interest of the NPCs....and too many DMs will use reasoning like Vhad's (and other varients) to justify it after the fact. Sunder needs to be harder. Simple as that. You can't assume that RP restrictions will balance out a mechanically broken mechanic. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-13-07, 08:19 PM | How is it broken? The sunderer doesn't do damage to the player just the item, and can only damage it if his own weapon is of the same bonus at least, plus magic weapons get +1 hardness and HP per bonus. It seems to scale well enough as only the more powerful enemies should have a bonus equal to or higher than what the PCs would have on their weapons. The only times it really hurts is at low levels (when the PCs are likely to not have anything beyond masterwork and picking up the enemies weapons won't be too much of a downgrade). The only time something special is going to get sundered (spellbooks, amulets, belts, ect.) is if the enemy happens to know what it is and is more worried about the ability it's giving the hero than dispatching the hero. Yes, if the DM is metagaming then sunder is broken. Likewise if the players are metagaming, sunder is broken. That isn't the mechanics fault that is the players. The system should not have to make the game perfect for bad players. As for the not in the NPCs interest. How is it not in a fighters interest to destroy his enemies weapon? Orc warrior sees elf with little sword. Elf cuts orc warriors friend in half. Orc bust elfs tiny sword. That's not a valid line of thinking? It seems people are just upset that they're things can get destroyed and don't think the players should have things taken away. Not using sunder for that reason is metagaming just as much. As is not using sunder because everyone you fight is obviously always going to be using magical things. |
| rironin07-13-07, 10:35 PM | How is it broken? The sunderer doesn't do damage to the player just the item, and can only damage it if his own weapon is of the same bonus at least, plus magic weapons get +1 hardness and HP per bonus.I'm pretty sure that the part about weapons only being able to sunder weapons of equal or lesser enhancement bonus is from 3.0, and is no longer part of the rules. In 3.5, anything can sunder anything - magical enhancements only improve the hardness and the hit points. |
| runestar07-13-07, 11:05 PM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. Yes, but to be able to get the loot, they have to overcome its wielder, which might be a tall order if it is this very eq which is making the wielder a force to be challenged with. If you cannot defeat your foe, and you know it is due to his magic items which is making him strong, it makes sense to target those gear instead. With them gone, he is far weaker, and victory is at least possible. Imagine a fighter wielding a powerful magic sword, and has a lot of other valuables secreted on his body. If you face him as is, he is likely to rip you apart - such is his combat prowess with his sword. Knowing that you have no chance of success whatsoever, which would make more sense - continue your way of fighting while holding out for that magic sword you know you will never get because you are a gone gander, or sunder that weapon, reduce the fighter to a pathetic brawler, kill him with ease, and you survive to loot the rest of his gear. Not as much as you had hoped, but at least you survived to spend it. And you can always send the sundered weapon for repair. I don't see it as a form of metagaming. Players just don't like it because they see it as eating into their "fair" share of treasure, but it is very much a valid combat tactic, be it in real life or in a fantasy setting such as dnd. Look at those movies where the evil wizard has a powerful gem which grants him immense power. One typical strategy is for the fighter to try and shatter his gem with his sword, thus robbing the wizard of his power. You rarely see fighters taking on the wizard at full strength like that, while thinking "Boy, I sure would kick butt if I had that gem". |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 12:13 AM | I'm pretty sure that the part about weapons only being able to sunder weapons of equal or lesser enhancement bonus is from 3.0, and is no longer part of the rules. In 3.5, anything can sunder anything - magical enhancements only improve the hardness and the hit points. Top of page 222 in the DMG disagrees. "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." Now, it may have been errataed, I don't know because I don't keep up with that, but the core books make it this way and it seems perfectly balance that way. If you read that section you'll see that the magic items get the hardness/hp bump as well making it tough to damage magic items if the heroes actually keep tuning up the enhancement bonuses on them. |
| runestar07-14-07, 12:21 AM | Top of page 222 in the DMG disagrees. "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." This has been clarified both in the FAQ. The Dungeon Master’s Guide says that only a magic weapon with the same or higher enhancement bonus can sunder another magic weapon or a magic shield, but the text for the sunder attack in the Player’s Handbook doesn’t mention this. Also, the Dungeon Master’s Guide says a magic item gets one extra point of hardness and one extra hit point per +1 of enhancement bonus. The Player’s Handbook, however, says it gets +2 hardness and +10 hit points per +1 of enhancement bonus. Which is correct? Finally, what happens when a weapon or shield has a special quality that increases the item’s price as an additional enhancement bonus? Does the item gain hardness and hit points for that extra enhancement bonus? What about magic items that don’t have enhancement bonuses? Do they get any extra hardness or hit points? When a special material gives a nonmagical enhancement bonus, such as adamantine, does the item gain any extra hardness or hit points from that bonus? You can sunder a magic item with any kind of weapon; you don’t need something with an equal or higher enhancement bonus. Text to the contrary (found on page 222 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide) is erroneous. A magic item gains +2 hardness and +10 hit points per point of enhancement bonus, as noted in the Player’s Handbook (page 165). Both of these corrections are noted in the Dungeon Master’s Guide errata file. A magic item gains extra hardness and hit points only for the enhancement bonus that it actually has, not for the effective enhancement bonus used to calculate its price. For example, a +1 flaming burst longsword costs as much as a +3 longsword. A +1 flaming burst longsword has hardness 12 and 15 hit points whereas a +3 longsword has hardness 16 and 35 hit points. Magic items that have no enhancement bonuses—which is almost everything except weapons, shields, and armor—have no extra hardness or hit points. For example, a paper scroll has a hardness of 0 and 1 hit point, no matter how many spells it contains. Adamantine itself doesn’t provide a nonmagical enhancement bonus; an adamantine item is always a masterwork item, so an adamantine weapon gives you a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Masterwork items don’t have any extra hardness or hit points. |
| rironin07-14-07, 01:01 AM | Top of page 222 in the DMG disagrees. "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." Now, it may have been errataed, I don't know because I don't keep up with that, but the core books make it this way and it seems perfectly balance that way. If you read that section you'll see that the magic items get the hardness/hp bump as well making it tough to damage magic items if the heroes actually keep tuning up the enhancement bonuses on them.It has in fact been altered in 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.I vaguely recall disliking this rule when I originally read it, because it means that many huge, strong creatures (like dragons) simply cannot sunder magical items. In 3.0, did dragons have the ability to sunder magic weapons with equal or less enhancement than their DR/+ ? I might have made that up. But in any case it was a bit wonky. I think that the errata was needed, because most rules in D&D that involved hard absolute limits like these resulted in silly things (like a great wyrm being unable to bend a +1 greatsword). However, I will grant you that I have no idea where their rationale for changing the rule as stated came from. (They imply that they issued this errata to make the weapon entry match the shield entry?) |
| Polaris07-14-07, 01:15 AM | How is it broken? The sunderer doesn't do damage to the player just the item, and can only damage it if his own weapon is of the same bonus at least, plus magic weapons get +1 hardness and HP per bonus. This was changed in the DMG errata. Any weapon can damage any other item. It seems to scale well enough as only the more powerful enemies should have a bonus equal to or higher than what the PCs would have on their weapons. The only times it really hurts is at low levels (when the PCs are likely to not have anything beyond masterwork and picking up the enemies weapons won't be too much of a downgrade). The only time something special is going to get sundered (spellbooks, amulets, belts, ect.) is if the enemy happens to know what it is and is more worried about the ability it's giving the hero than dispatching the hero. The problem is that a charcter's life (esp at high levels) is worth 10,000 gp (the material cost of a True Ressurection). Sundering easily will cost the party more than this. It's the same reason that MDJ is broken. [Snip the rest] I am not saying that in of itself sunder is an invalid tactic. What I AM saying is that it's far too easy to sunder items....so much so that it creates an overwhelming temptation to metagame to use it to hose the players (sundering a spellbook is a CLASSIC example of monster metagaming since sundering a spellbook doesn't make it any easier to defeat a wizard and costs the monster a lot of potential gold, but it does hose the PC wizard). It's the same problem MDJ has albeit to a lesser extent. I don't object to sundering being in the game. I object to the fact it's too easy to sunder items as the rules are currently written. -Polaris |
| rironin07-14-07, 01:26 AM | I'm primarily a DM, and I haven't used sundering at all yet against my players. Except for one time with some destrachan. In any case, I think there's nothing wrong with sundering, as long as the DM keeps in mind that he's destroying the PCs' wealth and that they're going to need a lot of counterbalancing treasure after the fight to replace the items they've lost. No, it's not "realistic" for PCs to find extra treasure after fighting creatures that sunder their items; but neither is it realistic for heroes to consistently find just enough treasure to keep them advancing at an even progression until they reach near godhood status. So long as the players know their DM isn't going to destroy their items in a difficult battle (which the PCs will likely still win in the end) and then say "Ha ha, now you have to play the rest of the campaign without good gear" then a sundering enemy is a nasty challenge, but not a deal-breaking outrage. I experimented with this a bit in one previous adventure when I introduced a minor villain who they've yet to get even with. He basically showed up at the end of the adventure, confiscated all of their loot, and that was that. At the time he was far too powerful for them to defeat, so they were just stuck with a sudden loss of wealth that hit them hard. They've never hated a villain so much as the overzealous paladin who confiscated their hard-won loot - but they didn't hate me for it, once I reminded them that it was all going to work out in the end, and that I wasn't going to make them paupers just because they had a tough break in game. |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 01:30 AM | I am not saying that in of itself sunder is an invalid tactic. What I AM saying is that it's far too easy to sunder items....so much so that it creates an overwhelming temptation to metagame to use it to hose the players (sundering a spellbook is a CLASSIC example of monster metagaming since sundering a spellbook doesn't make it any easier to defeat a wizard and costs the monster a lot of potential gold, but it does hose the PC wizard). First off, if the DM is having a problem with hosing the players, then the mechanics are not to blame, the DM is. The system should not be required to make bad players/DMs good, that is asking too much of it. Secondly, I don't see it that way. If an enemy or monster is fleeing and gets the chance, I'd definately see it as a valid tactic to get a parting blow in with the spell book, escpecially if the spell caster has been a dangerous foe in the fight. Why? Because it insures that if they hunt you down, they won't be as effective. My brain has quit working at the moment due to the time, but recurring villains are a staple in most D&D games. Why would battle through attrition not be a valid tactic for such enemies? Wearing your enemy down is a good thing. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 01:37 AM | First off, if the DM is having a problem with hosing the players, then the mechanics are not to blame, the DM is. The system should not be required to make bad players/DMs good, that is asking too much of it. If a mechanic depends on the DM's explicit goodwill to remain balanced, then there is a serious problem with the mechanic. It's the same reason why RP restrictions are generally worthless as mechanical counter-balancing factors. Secondly, I don't see it that way. If an enemy or monster is fleeing and gets the chance, I'd definately see it as a valid tactic to get a parting blow in with the spell book, escpecially if the spell caster has been a dangerous foe in the fight. No it's not because such a tactic: 1. Hinders your ability to escape. 2. Deliberately enrages the foe making it even less likely for you to escape. Why? Because it insures that if they hunt you down, they won't be as effective. My brain has quit working at the moment due to the time, but recurring villains are a staple in most D&D games. Why would battle through attrition not be a valid tactic for such enemies? Wearing your enemy down is a good thing. You are assuming that the recurring villian will escape. The problem is that very low (even first) level NPCs can hurt or even completely cripple parties of much high level because sundering items is too easy. That's what you are missing here. I am not saying that sundering shouldn't be part of the game. I am saying the mechanics for it are so broken, that it depends on DM fiat to keep your PCs alive....and that's not right. -Polaris |
| runestar07-14-07, 01:41 AM | The problem is that a charcter's life (esp at high levels) is worth 10,000 gp (the material cost of a True Ressurection). True res costs 25,000gp actually.:) |
| Polaris07-14-07, 01:44 AM | True res costs 25,000gp actually.:) So noted, but I think my point is clear. It doesn't take very long, or at very high levels for Sundering even minor items to have a impact totally out of porportion to the encounter level....so much so (because sundering is so easy), that you are actually better off DYING than getting your gear sundered. -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 01:47 AM | If the object is masterwork and they pass their appraise check, then yes. Eh, appraise is determine an item's exact value. And you certainly can't do it in combat. I'm not so sure you have to make a check to realize a sword is masterwork. Magic aura suggests it's easy to tell whether an item is masterwork, but perhaps the spell assumes people are going to be staring at it for a while. I fail to see how it's metagaming or uneffective for the BBEGs guard to sunder a characters sword. Disarms him for that fight, and chances are he won't be using it any time soon. It could be reasonable in some situations, sure, but I don't think it should come up that often. If you cannot defeat your foe, and you know it is due to his magic items which is making him strong, it makes sense to target those gear instead. With them gone, he is far weaker, and victory is at least possible. Maybe. If the NPCs knows the belt is making the PC 00b3r, then it makes sense. But how often does that happen? Sunder a weapon seems more likely, but why not just disarm instead? Knowing that you have no chance of success whatsoever, which would make more sense - continue your way of fighting while holding out for that magic sword you know you will never get because you are a gone gander, or sunder that weapon, reduce the fighter to a pathetic brawler, kill him with ease, and you survive to loot the rest of his gear. If he's that good with the sword, you'll probably fail the opposed attack roll. Also, if the sword's magical, it's probably hard to damage. Why not disarm instead? |
| Polaris07-14-07, 01:51 AM | Maybe. If the NPCs knows the belt is making the PC 00b3r, then it makes sense. But how often does that happen? Sunder a weapon seems more likely, but why not just disarm instead? In a word: metagaming. Sundering a weapon is hard (as you just alluded to) because it takes a contest of attack rolls. Sundering an item (such as a belt) is almost trivially easy even if it's a highly enchanted belt. That's the problem. -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 01:58 AM | Yes, I agree that sundering wore items is far too easy. It also further the notion that D&D character have no martial skill whatsoever. They just stand there and swing really hard at the other guy. At a minimum, sundering a wore item should require a touch attack. As it is, things like deflection and dodge bonuses don't even apply. In reality, cutting off the other guys belt is a lot harder than wounding him. Especially doing it without cutting up his belly or some such. |
| sigma99907-14-07, 03:11 AM | Go naked. Flesh can't be sundered, but it sure hurts when hit... At least your eqs won't be. Now it's your arm or ribs. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 03:19 AM | Go naked. Flesh can't be sundered, but it sure hurts when hit... At least your eqs won't be. Now it's your arm or ribs. Not necessary. Armor (of any type) can't be sundered.....which from a realism perspective is really strange since it's actually easier to 'sunder' armor (esp by hitting it in weak places) than it is to sunder items (again IRL). Of course that does raise at least one possible defense against sundering items (esp small ones like holy symbols). Simply wear them underneath your armor (you can't target what you can't see...and you can't sunder the armor to get to the item anyway). If this seems innane, then as a DM, you really do need to reconsider the rules for sundering items....or simply not allow it at all (because it's stupid-broken). Sundering weapons and shields is fine as written. -Polaris |
| runestar07-14-07, 06:13 AM | Of course that does raise at least one possible defense against sundering items (esp small ones like holy symbols). Simply wear them underneath your armor (you can't target what you can't see...and you can't sunder the armor to get to the item anyway). If this seems innane, then as a DM, you really do need to reconsider the rules for sundering items....or simply not allow it at all (because it's stupid-broken). Sundering weapons and shields is fine as written. I think anyone wise to this can easily work around the sundering of holy symbols and the like simply by carrying around multiple copies. They are dirt cheap - it might be easy to sunder a holy symbol, but when the cleric has 30+ secreted throughout his entire body, you can't afford to spend 30 rounds sundering them. Same goes for spell component pouches.:) |
| groveborn07-14-07, 06:49 AM | Weapon enhancement Brilliant Energy. It bypasses non living matter, thus is impervious to sundering (except by ghost touch weapons), at least that's my take. Disarm your opponent. Use reach weapons... Use invisibility. |
| runestar07-14-07, 08:19 AM | Weapon enhancement Brilliant Energy. It bypasses non living matter, thus is impervious to sundering (except by ghost touch weapons), at least that's my take. Brilliant simply lets you ignore any armour bonuses your foe may possess. Nothing in its entry states that it is immune to sunder, and thus, we should not assume that it has such a benefit by virtue of ambiguous flavour text (for example, what is to stop me from sundering the non-brilliant part of the weapon?):) Disarm could be an alternative, but as mentioned, there would be scenarios where sunder is better than disarming. Heck, certain creatures, like the titan, flat out state that they will attempt to sunder the PCs' weapons. |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 01:29 PM | If a mechanic depends on the DM's explicit goodwill to remain balanced, then there is a serious problem with the mechanic. It's the same reason why RP restrictions are generally worthless as mechanical counter-balancing factors. Then the entire system is broken because it relies on the DM not hosing off the party with CRs 20 above the party level. Bad DMing does not mean a mechanic is broken and can not be used as proof to such a claim. This is just like people claiming that rolling ability scores is bad because some people get upset by having the low scores of the group. You are placing the blame in the wrong place. No it's not because such a tactic: 1. Hinders your ability to escape. 2. Deliberately enrages the foe making it even less likely for you to escape. How so? RMBEG (Recurring minor bad evil guy) has been fighting with the group for a few rounds and his henchies are getting smacked around like red headed step children. He takes a partying blow, five foots back, drinks a pot, then withdraws on his next acton. The heroes can chase him if they want but chances are they're going to take AoOs from all his henchies. Yes, sometimes it wouldn't make sense, like if the villain is at one HP, alone, and completely surrounded by the heroes. You're giving a blanket statement as if it is always going to do those things, and it will not. There are times when it is completely valid and logical. You are assuming that the recurring villian will escape. The problem is that very low (even first) level NPCs can hurt or even completely cripple parties of much high level because sundering items is too easy. That's what you are missing here. I am not saying that sundering shouldn't be part of the game. I am saying the mechanics for it are so broken, that it depends on DM fiat to keep your PCs alive....and that's not right. No, they are not, the mechanics are perfectly fine. If the group has a problem metagaming then metagaming is the problem, not the mechanics. If your character is able to tell that an item is magic (most likely with detect magic) then he should be able to sunder it. An amulet shouldn't have 8000 hitpoints. It should be pretty easy to cut through with a blade. If your character doesn't know about the magic item, why would he go for it? So noted, but I think my point is clear. It doesn't take very long, or at very high levels for Sundering even minor items to have a impact totally out of porportion to the encounter level....so much so (because sundering is so easy), that you are actually better off DYING than getting your gear sundered. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you wouldn't keep a party on the average wealth table if you sundered there stuff, or at least that's what you're making it sound like. Nothing about sundering changes the amount of wealth the DM should be keeping the heroes at. Their items get sundered, they'll get new ones soon. Might not be able to min/max perfectly, but nothing says the PCs should always have what they want. Eh, appraise is determine an item's exact value. And you certainly can't do it in combat. I'm not so sure you have to make a check to realize a sword is masterwork. Magic aura suggests it's easy to tell whether an item is masterwork, but perhaps the spell assumes people are going to be staring at it for a while. Why wouldn't you have to make a check? Do the swords have a tag hanging off them that says MASTERWORK INC.? There are good swords in the world and their are shoddy swords in the world. As far as that goes, there are shoddy swords that look very pretty, and good swords that have seen much better days. Don't know what magic aura is, doesn't seem to be in my books (only got core) but appraise seems the closest thing to be able to judge is an item is masterwork without magic. On a normal weapon, if the price is higher than about a hundred gold then usually it's going to be masterwork (that's assuming that you fail and get the percentage above that mark). I don't see anything that prohibits it in combat, but it takes a long time (1 full minute) so you'll be standing there for a while studying your opponents gear if you try to evaluate it's worth before gutting him. Maybe. If the NPCs knows the belt is making the PC 00b3r, then it makes sense. But how often does that happen? Sunder a weapon seems more likely, but why not just disarm instead? Disarm means you get an AoO at most usually unless you are unarmed and can grab the weapon. AoO is a lot different than crippling your opponent for the rest of a fight. The two tactics are not even similar. Assuming the enemy is unarmed and takes the sword, is that really any better for the PC. Now he lost his prized weapon and the enemy has it to boot. If he's that good with the sword, you'll probably fail the opposed attack roll. Also, if the sword's magical, it's probably hard to damage. Why not disarm instead? It might not necessarily be his attack bonus being higher than yours. Most often when I've seen situations like that arise it's been because the extra bonuses are letting him poor out buckets of damage. Like a +1 Flaming, Shocking, Thundering, Frost Greataxe. When the hero is taking loads of damage each round and the clerics spells are drying up sundering often looks very good. As above, disarming means you just get that AoO and he only gets one attack the next round (baring things like haste of course). Sunder is permanent for the fight. |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 01:46 PM | Why wouldn't you have to make a check? Why would it be appraise? Even if you fail the appraise check, you can tell whether the sword is masterwork. 157.5 gp is a lot more than 22.5 gp. You don't take a minute to figure out a longsword is a longsword. Why should have to study an item to tell that its masterwork? Don't know what magic aura is, doesn't seem to be in my books (only got core) PHB page 257-258. I don't see anything that prohibits it in combat, but it takes a long time (1 full minute) so you'll be standing there for a while studying your opponents gear if you try to evaluate it's worth before gutting him. You just noted what prohibits its use in combat. Don't be silly. AoO is a lot different than crippling your opponent for the rest of a fight. Sundering the PC's magic sword mainly makes him made. He'll just draw a backup weapon as a free action (thanks to the MIC) and full attack. Yes, it'll be an inferior weapon, but probably not enough of a difference to save the NPC's life. Assuming the enemy is unarmed and takes the sword, is that really any better for the PC. Now he lost his prized weapon and the enemy has it to boot. And then the PC kills the NPC and takes his sword back. Most often when I've seen situations like that arise it's been because the extra bonuses are letting him poor out buckets of damage. Like a +1 Flaming, Shocking, Thundering, Frost Greataxe. I guess it might make sense under those circumstances. |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 02:04 PM | Why would it be appraise? Even if you fail the appraise check, you can tell whether the sword is masterwork. 157.5 gp is a lot more than 22.5 gp. You don't take a minute to figure out a longsword is a longsword. Why should have to study an item to tell that its masterwork? Right, but it still takes time. The only reference I can find to determining whether a weapon is a good weapon or not is in appraise. Given, it's in the flavor text, but it still refers to weapons and their quality. A longsword is blatant, masterwork is not. Masterwork is a quality of the longsword. Why wouldn't he have to study a weapon to tell it's masterwork. Masterwork isn't about appearance, it's about balance and craftsmanship. The only way to tell this would be to either hold it yourself and examine it, or study it in action. PHB page 257-258. Ah, Nystul's Magic Aura. I fail to see how this has any relevance at all. If an enemy sits down with a weapon and realizes that it's not masterwork but giving off +2 vorpal (which requires an identify spell that takes an hour (600 rounds of combat)) then it's fishy. Otherwise the most you're going to know if the caster level and school of the aura involved in the weapons mask. You just noted what prohibits its use in combat. Don't be silly. 10 rounds does not prohibit it's use in combat, just makes it unlikely. I can easily imagine a thieves guild member sitting back watching a street fight while studying the fighters sword or the wizards amulet. Sundering the PC's magic sword mainly makes him made. He'll just draw a backup weapon as a free action (thanks to the MIC) and full attack. Yes, it'll be an inferior weapon, but probably not enough of a difference to save the NPC's life. MIC? Why won't it be enough to save the NPC's life? I don't normally see NPCs dropped in one hit unless it's very low levels, and if they are hurting why wouldn't they run away? Most people arn't willing to die for no reason. Most people don't want to get hurt. Both of those give plenty of reason to sunder a weapon. No more hurty = no death. Ya, the hero might pull out another weapon, but if the NPC is hurting or alone, why didnt' he run in the first place? It seems people are basing their arguments on "well this is always going to be the case" so it's bad. There are times when it's perfectly reasonable and not a deathtrap in any way. And then the PC kills the NPC and takes his sword back. Possibly. Or possibly the NPC ends up having to retreat a few rounds later, or possibly the heroes have to retreat a few rounds later. Not all NPCs die. |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 02:22 PM | Masterwork isn't about appearance, it's about balance and craftsmanship. The only way to tell this would be to either hold it yourself and examine it, or study it in action. Show where the rules say this. As I said, magic aura implies the masterwork property is visible: A magic weapon, shield, or suit of armor must be a masterwork item, so a sword of average make, for example, looks suspicious if it has a magical aura. MIC? Magic Item Compendium. I don't normally see NPCs dropped in one hit unless it's very low levels, and if they are hurting why wouldn't they run away? I see NPCs killed by full attacks all the time. Ya, the hero might pull out another weapon, but if the NPC is hurting or alone, why didnt' he run in the first place? Uh, I'm assuming the NPC is trying to kill the PC. Not all NPCs die. They most always lose. It is their fate, sadly. |
| Majick07-14-07, 02:24 PM | the Combat Brute tactical feat that gives you Sundering Cleave is THE MOST AWESOME ability in the whole damn game! A lot of people have said: "Why would an NPC kill your weapons and gear if they want to get cash too?" answer: they don't want cash or your gear, they want you dead "Sundering is lame; it's a totally broken tactic that should be changed" answer: use 3.0 rules if it's that much of an issue "It's total metagaming of the DM to sunder my spellbook/holy symbol!" answer: Say what!? If someone KNOWS your a mage, you know, the type that HAS A SPELL BOOK, but they are a fighter type and have no specific knowledge of your abilities, why WOULDN'T THEY sunder it? They think you cast spells from a freakin' book for gods sake! It makes PERFECT SENSE! And the holy symbol? Fighter - "He's praying into that symbol thing and casting spells, let's smash it so he can't anymore!" uuuhh... doesn't get any more common sense than that... does it? (no, actually, it doesn't) Seriously guys |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 02:29 PM | answer: they don't want cash or your gear, they want you dead Then they should probably try to kill you, not attack your sword or belt. If someone KNOWS your a mage, you know, the type that HAS A SPELL BOOK, but they are a fighter type and have no specific knowledge of your abilities, why WOULDN'T THEY sunder it? Sundering a spellbook is idiotic under most circumstances. It doesn't help you win the fight. It only hurts the wizard at some point in the future. Even sundering a holy symbol is very risky. You're wasting an action on something that might not even hinder your opponent. The cleric could easily have another holy symbol or cast a spell that doesn't require the symbol. |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 02:31 PM | Show where the rules say this. As I said, magic aura implies the masterwork property is visible: Show where it says that it is automatically visible. Magic aura implies that if a person is studying said item and using a detect magic spell or identify. I'd suggest reading the entire description rather than ripping out sentences and arguing their points out of context. Uh, I'm assuming the NPC is trying to kill the PC. Right, but most NPCs arn't suicide bombers. Most NPCs arn't willing to die to take out someone else. Trying to kill does not equal suicidal. They most always lose. It is their fate, sadly. And losing does not equal death. NPCs can lose and run away and most would unless of course the DM is metagaming (which seems to be the largest problem presented in this thread rather than sundering itself). The only times people are usually willing to give their life are if it's religious, loved ones depend on it, or they're bosses will kill them anyway if they don't suceed. |
| TheCobra07-14-07, 02:53 PM | Show where it says that it is automatically visible. I think this is the end. We've reached that classic stalemate. "The burden of proof is on you. My assumption is the default." "No, the burden of proof is on you. My assumption the default." Ah well. Magic aura implies that if a person is studying said item and using a detect magic spell or identify. What does that have to do with anything? Right, but most NPCs arn't suicide bombers. Most NPCs arn't willing to die to take out someone else. Trying to kill does not equal suicidal. If the NPCs don't want to die, they should run. If they understood how much more powerful the PCs are, they probably would. NPCs can lose and run away and most would unless of course the DM is metagaming (which seems to be the largest problem presented in this thread rather than sundering itself). Losing commonly does mean death. If that full attack kills you, there's no running away. Fine, so in your games, the NPCs never fight PCs. They just run away, as they should. When do they have the chance to sunder anything? The only times people are usually willing to give their life are if it's religious, loved ones depend on it, or they're bosses will kill them anyway if they don't suceed. Risking your life and giving your life are two different things. The best way to explain it is that the NPCs tend to underestimate the PCs. |
| PhaedrusXY07-14-07, 02:59 PM | Most people probably don't realize just how ridiculously easy it is to sunder objects that aren't weapons or shields. There is a major problem with the rules for sundering objects. It is something that should be house-ruled extensively as a DM if you plan on using that tactic (or if the PCs do). Point this out to your DM. If he doesn't change it, make your next PC a dedicated sunderer who doesn't rely heavily on magic items. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 07:04 PM | Most people probably don't realize just how ridiculously easy it is to sunder objects that aren't weapons or shields. There is a major problem with the rules for sundering objects. It is something that should be house-ruled extensively as a DM if you plan on using that tactic (or if the PCs do). Point this out to your DM. If he doesn't change it, make your next PC a dedicated sunderer who doesn't rely heavily on magic items. My point exactly throughout this thread. Holy symbols may be cheap, but spell books certainly aren't. Neither are headbands of intellect, belts of bullstrength, etc. It is ridiculously easy.....to broken....to sunder items and that's what makes this tactic metagaming. I have no issue with Sunder as a tactic. I do have an issue with a DM using a broken rule to keep the PCs 'in their place'. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 07:15 PM | Again, that tactic can be metagaming, but doesn't have to be. This is especially in the case of recurring villains and goes both ways. The villains/party tend to know each other and when the barb gets a new pair of gloves and is immensely stronger, it will usually set off bells in a smart bad guys head. Especially if the bad guy happens to cast detect magic to see what suprises the PCs might have in store. Intelligent PCs will notice the same thing with the recurring villain. They have the same options in dealing with him/them. Playing bad guys smart is not metagaming if they are in fact smart. Bad DMs are bad DMs, using bad DMs as an arguement does not work. If a character metagames by reading the entire MM and knows how to and does kill everything using their weaknesses even though his PC knows nothing about them, is the CR system broken due to that? The damage reduction system? No in both cases. It's a bad player. Your arguement about DM metagaming is the same thing. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 07:22 PM | Vhad, No it's not the same thing. Why would an opponent go after your new gloves instead of trying to kill you or at least try to sunder your weapon? Metagaming. It's much, MUCH easier to sunder your gloves than it actually is to hit you (in most cases). Don't believe me? Read PHB page 158 under Sundering a Worn or Carried Object. You will find that when sundering an object, you DON'T make an opposed attack check, you AREN'T subject to an AoO, and you only have to hit the AC of the object. The AC of the object is: 10+Character's Dex Mod+Item's Size Mod For a medium sized creature, the most the size mod will be is +4 (for rings) so you are looking at an AC of 18...20 tops for RINGS. This is broken and unrealistic and if the DM is explicitly taking advantage of this (or the players are) instead of trying to kill the enemy (or at least sunder the weapon....which can kill you after all) THEN THEY ARE METAGAMING. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-14-07, 07:40 PM | If it's something the NPC would do how is it taking advantage of it? A blanket ban saying this never is logical does not work. There are always times when this can logically crop up. Maybe the bad guys don't want to hurt the heroes. Maybe the bad guy is intentionally trying to tick the heroes off. Are these unreasonable thing to happen? No. There are times when keeping the heroes alive is in a bad guys interest but he still needs the hatred they have for him to burn. If he is smart enough to recognize things for what they are, then it is not metagaming for him to destroy them. Metagaming would be if he thought "well they are high leveled so I'll start sundering everything they're wearing in their slots" because it uses out of game information (levels and slots) as reasoning. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 07:53 PM | Vhad, OMG, are you serious? Have you even bothered to read a single word I have posted???? The problem is that sundering items is FAR TOO EASY. How many times to I have to repeat this. If an NPC, PC, (or the DM) takes advantage of a rule to attack in a way that is otherwise completely unreasonable (going after a belt instead of a sword or even the heart) is metagaming. In fact it's the very definition of metagaming since the attacker is taking advantage of a game rule that in character they have no way of knowing. -Polaris |
| Ace_of_time07-14-07, 08:18 PM | To the point DMs sometimes use sunder to get rid of items they don't want you to have and don't want to say "you can't have this". It is easier for some to just let it get destoryed in battle and be done with it. I don't because it is very cheap. I would just rather talk to the player and be done with it. Just ready an action next time you think he will try it. Even use sunder or disarm if you have imp feats. |
| Polaris07-14-07, 10:56 PM | To the point DMs sometimes use sunder to get rid of items they don't want you to have and don't want to say "you can't have this". It is easier for some to just let it get destoryed in battle and be done with it. I don't because it is very cheap. I would just rather talk to the player and be done with it. You're absolutely right it's cheap. It's metagaming on the part of the DM. Just ready an action next time you think he will try it. Even use sunder or disarm if you have imp feats. What good does that do? So you get to interrupt his attack with an attack of your own. Big deal. He still gets to sunder....and you possibly give up an attack of your own (and you will if the DM is metagaming). Not only that, but the Sunder Item rule is not only broken, but it grossly favors the monsters over the PCs. Dragons (for example) don't wear many appreciable items and certainly don't get most of their power from them. Players that are potent enough to take on dragons probably do.......it's the same reason MDJ is broken if on a slightly smaller scale. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 12:12 AM | The problem is that sundering items is FAR TOO EASY. How many times to I have to repeat this. I've read everything you've had to say, but it still hasn't proved your point. You believe sundering is too easy that's fine, you don't have to repeat it. You've been arguing, however, that sundering is metagaming which is what I have been arguing against. The two issues are not the same. If an NPC, PC, (or the DM) takes advantage of a rule to attack in a way that is otherwise completely unreasonable (going after a belt instead of a sword or even the heart) is metagaming. Not if the NPC has reason to do so. Just because you believe the mechanics of it are broken doesn't mean it's metagaming. If two handed attacks auto-killed on a critical would the falchion be broken? Of course. Would it be metagaming for you character to use a falchion if he group up in an environment that was known for using said weapon? No. Broken (which I don't believe the mechanic is) does not equal metagaming. In fact it's the very definition of metagaming since the attacker is taking advantage of a game rule that in character they have no way of knowing. Well you've shown that you know the meaning of metagaming here at least, but havn't proved you point with it. Metagaming is taking advantage of the rules and OOC information for IC gain. If you see a fighter draw a potion from his belt is it metagaming to sunder it? For that matter if you see vials hanging from the fighter's belt is it metagaming to sunder them? Is it metagaming to sunder them so the belt falls? If the mage calls out "His amulet is magic" is it metagaming to sunder it? If the character has knowledge of what he is doing, then he isn't taking advantage of any rule, he's taken advantage of his knowledge. The rules may make it easy or hard, but he's still using his IC knowledge to draw his conclusion for sundering. Now I'm not saying sundering can't be metagamed, just that it isn't automatically so as you keep suggesting. By your argument it's metagaming to drink a potion because it's taking advantage of a rule the character can't possibly know (gaining HPs, WTF are HPs? They're an OOC concept). |
| Polaris07-15-07, 12:25 AM | I've read everything you've had to say, but it still hasn't proved your point. You believe sundering is too easy that's fine, you don't have to repeat it. You've been arguing, however, that sundering is metagaming which is what I have been arguing against. The two issues are not the same. No and that's not QUITE what I've been arguing. What I've been arguing is that in the case in question (going back to the OP) and frankly in most cases, sundering items is metagaming. Not if the NPC has reason to do so. Just because you believe the mechanics of it are broken doesn't mean it's metagaming. The DM will invent a reason for the NPC to do so. Inventing reasons is metagaming. The problem is that if you want to keep a person from killing you, and you want to sunder, then you should be targeting the person's weapon, shield, or armor. However, in the game that's hard (impossible in the case of armor). You should not be targeting items since they don't immediately give you victory. However, in the game (not in real life) sundering items is far too easy. Taking such advantage of a rule that a character can not know IRL is in fact metagaming. If two handed attacks auto-killed on a critical would the falchion be broken? Of course. Would it be metagaming for you character to use a falchion if he group up in an environment that was known for using said weapon? No. Yes it would if every NPC used a falchion. Broken (which I don't believe the mechanic is) does not equal metagaming. Explain to me how sundering items is not broken. I dare you. Hell, I double dare you. Well you've shown that you know the meaning of metagaming here at least, but havn't proved you point with it. Metagaming is taking advantage of the rules and OOC information for IC gain. Which is exactly what the DM is doing in the case of OP given the ease with which items are sundered. In fact IMX most (almost all) cases where the NPCs sunder items is a case of metagaming. If you see a fighter draw a potion from his belt is it metagaming to sunder it? You never get that chance without a readied action to counter just that (highly unlikely for a lot of good and sound tactical reasons). The next standard action (same round), the fighter uses the potion...and that's assuming the fighter doesn't have a potion case in which case drawing the potion is a free action. For that matter if you see vials hanging from the fighter's belt is it metagaming to sunder them? Is it metagaming to sunder them so the belt falls? If the mage calls out "His amulet is magic" is it metagaming to sunder it? Until the rules are changed, yes. If the character has knowledge of what he is doing, then he isn't taking advantage of any rule, he's taken advantage of his knowledge. The rules may make it easy or hard, but he's still using his IC knowledge to draw his conclusion for sundering. Now I'm not saying sundering can't be metagamed, just that it isn't automatically so as you keep suggesting. By your argument it's metagaming to drink a potion because it's taking advantage of a rule the character can't possibly know (gaining HPs, WTF are HPs? They're an OOC concept). If the DM is taking advantage of a broken rule that his NPCs can't possibly know in character, then he's metagaming. Period. -Polaris |
| Majick07-15-07, 12:31 AM | Then they should probably try to kill you, not attack your sword or belt. Sundering a spellbook is idiotic under most circumstances. It doesn't help you win the fight. It only hurts the wizard at some point in the future. Even sundering a holy symbol is very risky. You're wasting an action on something that might not even hinder your opponent. The cleric could easily have another holy symbol or cast a spell that doesn't require the symbol. 1. They ARE trying to kill you man, and by taking away possibly your BEST WEAPON they are going to find their job suddenly becomes MUCH easier... it makes sense 2. Sundering a spellbook is idiotic? Is it now? Did you read what i actually wrote? Any of it? No? Well i SAID (and you can go back and read this if you like) that someone without SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE of how mages and clerics work might ASSUME that the spellbook or holy symbol is the source of their power, so therefore logically, try and destroy it... how can that be more simple? They arn't doing it to hamper you in the future, it's under the assumption they don't suddenly KNOW what your class features are (which WOULD be metagaming) so they are doing it do hopefully hamper your efforts NOW... even if it doesn't, they tried, right? That what people do when they don't quite know how to handle something; they make a guess and try :rolleyes: |
| Polaris07-15-07, 12:36 AM | 1. They ARE trying to kill you man, and by taking away possibly your BEST WEAPON they are going to find their job suddenly becomes MUCH easier... it makes sense Read the entire quote. Going after your sword may make sense for just the reason you state. Going after your BELT does not. So why would an NPC go after your belt? Metagaming. That's why. It's a lot easier to sunder your belt (and you don't even take an AoO) than it is to sunder your sword or even hit you. That's the problem. 2. Sundering a spellbook is idiotic? Is it now? Did you read what i actually wrote? Any of it? No? Well i SAID (and you can go back and read this if you like) that someone without SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE of how mages and clerics work might ASSUME that the spellbook or holy symbol is the source of their power, so therefore logically, try and destroy it... how can that be more simple? They arn't doing it to hamper you in the future, it's under the assumption they don't suddenly KNOW what your class features are (which WOULD be metagaming) so they are doing it do hopefully hamper your efforts NOW... even if it doesn't, they tried, right? That what people do when they don't quite know how to handle something; they make a guess and try :rolleyes: Actually the fact that wizards are well known (it's in the general class description after all) of preparing all their spells in the morning FROM A BOOK and then putting that book away for the rest of the day, I'd say that any person with even low intelligence and any contact with civilization would know that sundering a spell-book is pointless to winning that fight (and thus actually counterproductive). Again, this is a case of the DM metagaming. -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-15-07, 12:51 AM | If the DM is taking advantage of a broken rule that his NPCs can't possibly know in character, then he's metagaming. Period. The thing is, the NPCs should have had combat experience before meeting the PCs. If the tactics works really well in the D&D universe, NPCs should know about this. Of course, I don't think it usually makes much sense for NPCs to do it, even as easy at it is. It hurts the PCs more in the longterm. Of course, it would be somewhat reasonable for the BBEG to hire a bunch of moderately skilled warriors to chop all the gear of the PCs before the final fight. This only works because the sunder rules are silly, but I don't see why the BBEG wouldn't know how sundering works in his world. 1. They ARE trying to kill you man, and by taking away possibly your BEST WEAPON they are going to find their job suddenly becomes MUCH easier... it makes sense Perhaps in some cases. Maybe at higher levels, when weapons have serious bonuses. But such weapons are often adamantine or starmetal, which is hard to sunder. That what people do when they don't quite know how to handle something; they make a guess and try So instead of trying to wound or kill your foe, you attack something that you think might be somehow related to his power? Doesn't sound too bright to me. It could make sense a tactic of desperation in some circumstances. That's about it. |
| Majick07-15-07, 12:55 AM | Read the entire quote. Going after your sword may make sense for just the reason you state. Going after your BELT does not. So why would an NPC go after your belt? Metagaming. That's why. It's a lot easier to sunder your belt (and you don't even take an AoO) than it is to sunder your sword or even hit you. That's the problem. Actually the fact that wizards are well known (it's in the general class description after all) of preparing all their spells in the morning FROM A BOOK and then putting that book away for the rest of the day, I'd say that any person with even low intelligence and any contact with civilization would know that sundering a spell-book is pointless to winning that fight (and thus actually counterproductive). Again, this is a case of the DM metagaming. -Polaris 1. Attacking a carried or worn object provoke AoO just as attacking a held object, it states in the PHB under the entry for, oh i don't know, SUNDER perhaps 1.a. You have to understand man, not everyone in a life and death situation think like YOU, some people use TACTICS to win battle, not just club each other 'till one falls down. You really think, and i am being deadly serious here, that a trained fighter, one who has seen combat countless times, would NOT go for something he might see as an opponents 'ace-in-the-hole' or trump card, or even go for it just because he knows what it is? e.g. Fighters of equal level go up against each other, both lvl 10 so not starting out noobs, both from a similar background (urban) and familiar with what magic items help them out... one fighter sees the other is wearing a Belt of Strength (because he knows what a belt of strength looks like, being he uses them too) so he decides to take advantage and smash it, so the other loses his advantage... still metagaming? This is not to say that EVERY character should do this, just that sometimes it DOES make sense 2. Combat character have a well known knowledge of wizards now? How they prepare their spells? Sound reasonable :rolleyes: Mr. Fighter who only works in the arena and trains to be better in combat would DEFINITLY know how a mage prepares his spells and how the whole magic system works... yeah... hmm... oh wait, that retarded, sorry. Unless the fighter type has been given specific knowledge on mages and clerics, he ain't gonna know squat 'cept for the fact that mages have books and cast spells and clerics pray (with holy symbols) and cast spells... seriously man... your argument doesn't make sense ...fighters can't even take knowledge religeon or arcana... they have no buisness KNOWING this stuff straight off the bat, no matter what there intelligence is |
| TheCobra07-15-07, 01:05 AM | ...fighters can't even take knowledge religeon or arcana... they have no buisness KNOWING this stuff straight off the bat, no matter what there intelligence is If this is the case, why would you expect such a fighter to risk his life on a vague hunch? Fighter: (Chops the wizard's spell book in half.) Wizard: (Steps back, casts color spray, and starts to cry.) Fighter: (Drools.) Wizard: (Draws a light pick.) "You should have killed me when you had the chance. I'm going to make this as painful as I possibly can." |
| Polaris07-15-07, 01:06 AM | 1. Attacking a carried or worn object provoke AoO just as attacking a held object, it states in the PHB under the entry for, oh i don't know, SUNDER perhaps I stand corrected, but the highlighted rules for sunder are for weapons and shields only. The AoO rule for item is buried in the fourth line of the second subseciton. 1.a. You have to understand man, not everyone in a life and death situation think like YOU, some people use TACTICS to win battle, not just club each other 'till one falls down. You really think, and i am being deadly serious here, that a trained fighter, one who has seen combat countless times, would NOT go for something he might see as an opponents 'ace-in-the-hole' or trump card, or even go for it just because he knows what it is? So you think it's good tactics to cut a foe's belt (which you can not know is magic just by looking at it...baring a few special cases) when the other guy is trying to KILL YOU with his greatsword. Yeah. Sounds like a real winner, general...... e.g. Fighters of equal level go up against each other, both lvl 10 so not starting out noobs, both from a similar background (urban) and familiar with what magic items help them out... one fighter sees the other is wearing a Belt of Strength (because he knows what a belt of strength looks like, being he uses them too) so he decides to take advantage and smash it, so the other loses his advantage... still metagaming? This is not to say that EVERY character should do this, just that sometimes it DOES make sense A belt of strength can look like anything. Read the rules. 2. Combat character have a well known knowledge of wizards now? How they prepare their spells? Sound reasonable :rolleyes: Mr. Fighter who only works in the arena and trains to be better in combat would DEFINITLY know how a mage prepares his spells and how the whole magic system works... yeah... hmm... oh wait, that retarded, sorry. Unless the fighter type has been given specific knowledge on mages and clerics, he ain't gonna know squat 'cept for the fact that mages have books and cast spells and clerics pray (with holy symbols) and cast spells... seriously man... your argument doesn't make sense If it's listed in the class descriptions in the PHB, then it's common knowledge. ...fighters can't even take knowledge religeon or arcana... they have no buisness KNOWING this stuff straight off the bat, no matter what there intelligence is Who says fighters can't take knowledge religion or arcana? My copy of the PHB doesn't say that. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 01:10 AM | You never get that chance without a readied action to counter just that (highly unlikely for a lot of good and sound tactical reasons). The next standard action (same round), the fighter uses the potion...and that's assuming the fighter doesn't have a potion case in which case drawing the potion is a free action. Not always the same round. Fighter attacks provoking an AoO, gets hurt backs up and draws a potion to drink the next round. Now, as an enemy, you don't necessarily know what the thing he just drew is. That said, vials are never a good sign. Either A.) they are chugged down to make the person stronger or B.) they are thrown about to hurt people. Sundering it in the Fighter's hand is a good option and not metagaming at all to anyone that has seen potions or vial weapons such as alchemists fire. The DM will invent a reason for the NPC to do so. Inventing reasons is metagaming. The problem is that if you want to keep a person from killing you, and you want to sunder, then you should be targeting the person's weapon, shield, or armor. Shoddy DMing is not a reason for a mechanic to be considered broken, and there are some items more dangerous than a foes weapon. Until the rules are changed, yes. So if the NPC would do something, say attacking the necklace of fireballs the PC has been using for the past three rounds (it's pretty obvious it's special when the character is grabbing a sphere from it and throwing it each action and the sphere explodes when it hits), is metagaming? You've stated what metagaming is and that doesn't fall under it. For it to be metagaming it has to be a situation the NPCs wouldn't do it because they don't know what it is/have no reason to. You're still trying to pass off what you see as broken to be metagaming and the two things are not the same. If the DM is taking advantage of a broken rule that his NPCs can't possibly know in character, then he's metagaming. Period. That is absolutely right. The key is the part "that his NPCs can't possibly know in character" which hasn't been the case in many of the examples that you claim were metagaming. Which is exactly what the DM is doing in the case of OP given the ease with which items are sundered. In fact IMX most (almost all) cases where the NPCs sunder items is a case of metagaming. The OP never really gave us a lot of information on his situation, it was mostly a "my DM is doing this, help" cry. He could've been, or it could've been reasonable. Most of the times I've seen NPCs sunder items it's been potions on belts after the PCs have drank a couple or holy symbols that have been used against their undead allies. I dont' see either of those as metagaming. Explain to me how sundering items is not broken. I dare you. Hell, I double dare you. Explain how it is. If you can hit and destroy the item and have a reason to, it works fine. The problem is having that reason to. Most of the time there is none, the PCs don't know what the gear their opponents are wearing does and the same goes for the opponents most of the time. So why would an NPC go after your belt? Metagaming. That's why. It's a lot easier to sunder your belt (and you don't even take an AoO) than it is to sunder your sword or even hit you. That's the problem. The one time I've seen it happen, the PC taunted the NPC "How do you like my new belt?" (Belt of giant strength btw). NPC sundered it and said "great". There are more to fights than just killing each other. Some characters (PCs and NPCs) are flashing and like tagging. Some like to **** the characters off. Some like to hit the character where it hurts. If the NPC would do it (knowledge, personality, and motivation all considered) then it is not metagaming. Again you're equating broken to metagaming which does not work. Actually the fact that wizards are well known (it's in the general class description after all) of preparing all their spells in the morning FROM A BOOK and then putting that book away for the rest of the day, I'd say that any person with even low intelligence and any contact with civilization would know that sundering a spell-book is pointless to winning that fight (and thus actually counterproductive). Again, this is a case of the DM metagaming. If the wizard has his book out, waving it around as he casts spells, then it's not a bad conclusion for the uneducated folk to jump to. I've actually had a new player do it the BBEG once. Why would everyone know that much about wizards? Does everyone get free knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft ranks for some reason? Now, yes after a while most adventurers would know and most enemies would probably to, but Jimmy Jack the level one commoner probably wouldn't. Can be a case of DM metagaming, not always, but again if you're fighting the same villains time after time it not illogical to spend a fight destroying resources. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 02:36 AM | Not always the same round. Fighter attacks provoking an AoO, gets hurt backs up and draws a potion to drink the next round. Why would a sensible fighter do this? Ever? Instead of the move-action to draw a potion, the fighter could withdraw and avoid the AoO entirely (and probably be out of range of a sunder attempt as well). Now, as an enemy, you don't necessarily know what the thing he just drew is. That said, vials are never a good sign. Either A.) they are chugged down to make the person stronger or B.) they are thrown about to hurt people. Sundering it in the Fighter's hand is a good option and not metagaming at all to anyone that has seen potions or vial weapons such as alchemists fire. Again, when would this exact situation come up, ever? Shoddy DMing is not a reason for a mechanic to be considered broken, and there are some items more dangerous than a foes weapon. The mechanic isn't broken because of shoddy DMing. The mechanic is broken because it's easier (far easier at high levels) to hit and break an 80,000gp magical ring with a masterwork blade than it is to hit the character! I remind you that if you lose more than 25000gp in items, you are actually better off dead! So if the NPC would do something, say attacking the necklace of fireballs the PC has been using for the past three rounds (it's pretty obvious it's special when the character is grabbing a sphere from it and throwing it each action and the sphere explodes when it hits), is metagaming? Until the mechanic is fixed, yes, I consider this both metagaming and bad GMing. I'd cry foul. You've stated what metagaming is and that doesn't fall under it. For it to be metagaming it has to be a situation the NPCs wouldn't do it because they don't know what it is/have no reason to. Sure it does because trying to sunder such a necklace is supposed to be hard, and it's not because the mechanic is completely broken. You're still trying to pass off what you see as broken to be metagaming and the two things are not the same. As far as I am concerned it is. If the DM is explicitly taking advantage of a broken mechanic to keep the PCs in line, then he's metagaming. That is absolutely right. The key is the part "that his NPCs can't possibly know in character" which hasn't been the case in many of the examples that you claim were metagaming. Have you fenced? I have. TRY targeting the opponent's belt. It's an unreasonable mechanic. The OP never really gave us a lot of information on his situation, it was mostly a "my DM is doing this, help" cry. He could've been, or it could've been reasonable. Most of the times I've seen NPCs sunder items it's been potions on belts after the PCs have drank a couple or holy symbols that have been used against their undead allies. I dont' see either of those as metagaming. Sunder Item is a broken mechanic because there is basically no defense against it. Even the AoO can be negated with a reach weapon (or a feat). Explain how it is. If you can hit and destroy the item and have a reason to, it works fine. The problem is having that reason to. Most of the time there is none, the PCs don't know what the gear their opponents are wearing does and the same goes for the opponents most of the time. I have. When it is far easier to hit a ring than it is to hit you and none of your personal defenses protect the items that you wear, then it's a broken mechanic. If it's not obvious to you by now, then you are a hopeless case. The one time I've seen it happen, the PC taunted the NPC "How do you like my new belt?" (Belt of giant strength btw). NPC sundered it and said "great". There are more to fights than just killing each other. Some characters (PCs and NPCs) are flashing and like tagging. Some like to **** the characters off. Some like to hit the character where it hurts. If the NPC would do it (knowledge, personality, and motivation all considered) then it is not metagaming. Again you're equating broken to metagaming which does not work. Most players don't know how easy it is to sunder items, but that is not an excuse for DM metagaming. If the wizard has his book out, waving it around as he casts spells, then it's not a bad conclusion for the uneducated folk to jump to. I've actually had a new player do it the BBEG once. Why would everyone know that much about wizards? Does everyone get free knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft ranks for some reason? Now, yes after a while most adventurers would know and most enemies would probably to, but Jimmy Jack the level one commoner probably wouldn't. Can be a case of DM metagaming, not always, but again if you're fighting the same villains time after time it not illogical to spend a fight destroying resources. Not necessary. Information in the flavor text for the PHB classes is (AFAIK) common knowledge. At worst an Int check (DC 10) would be enough. -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-15-07, 02:44 AM | I remind you that if you lose more than 25000gp in items, you are actually better off dead! Well, as long as your side still wins the fight, anyway. If you die and your buddies also die or retreat, you could end up in serious trouble. Your body might be turned into some undead creature. You can't come back until the creature is destroyed. And BoVD rules make things even scarier. Have you fenced? I have. TRY targeting the opponent's belt. It's an unreasonable mechanic. Yeah, but so are a lot things about D&D combat. Sundering items is silly even the strange standard of D&D fighting, though. I'll give you that. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 02:51 AM | Well, as long as your side still wins the fight, anyway. If you die and your buddies also die or retreat, you could end up in serious trouble. Your body might be turned into some undead creature. You can't come back until the creature is destroyed. And BoVD rules make things even scarier. Yeah, a TPK hoses everyone...but short of that..... As for BoVD, IMX those rules are almost always optional (and the less I say about BoVD the better since I have very little nice to say about it). As for being turned into an undead, that process is seldom instantaneous...so as long as you use True Ressurection (usually IMX via scroll) before that happens, you're golden (and no, you don't need the body available to do this). The point is that True-Ressurection is pretty much a "get out of jail free" card when dealing with death (except that it costs 25,000 gold). Yeah, but so are a lot things about D&D combat. Sundering items is silly even the strange standard of D&D fighting, though. I'll give you that. Well, true. DnD combat will never win awards for realism, but Sundering item is unreasonably wonky even for DnD (not to mention stupid broke). -Polaris |
| TheCobra07-15-07, 02:56 AM | Yeah, a TPK hoses everyone...but short of that..... As for BoVD, IMX those rules are almost always optional (and the less I say about BoVD the better since I have very little nice to say about it). Getting your soul utterly annihilated is rather unpleasant. My group plays with the BoVD. Honestly, I kind of like making death a little more scary. As for being turned into an undead, that process is seldom instantaneous... Animate dead only requires standard action, oddly enough. (except that it costs 25,000 gold) Starting at level 21, it might even be free! |
| Polaris07-15-07, 03:09 AM | Getting your soul utterly annihilated is rather unpleasant. My group plays with the BoVD. Honestly, I kind of like making death a little more scary. Well for this purpose I've deliberately stayed away from BoVD since it's not uniformally accepted. However, even in the case of soul annihilation, you can get the soul back via a wish or miracle in almost all cases. All it does is raise the price on death a bit....but even then, you are still better off dead than losing items which was my point. Animate dead only requires standard action, oddly enough. :nod: While True Res requires 10 minutes. However, Animate dead is only sensitive to the nature of your corpse and the level of the enemy caster and NOT what your level was. That means that killing such a spawn shouldn't take much more than a standard action by this point either (pretty much ever since at the lowest level, it will just convert a body until a 1hd skeleton). Once you kill the undead, true-res works fine. The other ways of turning into undead that ARE senstive to your former level rarely happen within 10 minutes. Starting at level 21, it might even be free! Quite true, but I didn't raise this point for the same reason I didn't mention BoVD or BoED. -Polaris |
| locustechpriest07-15-07, 03:50 AM | If the DM is explicitly taking advantage of a broken mechanic to keep the PCs in line, then he's meta-gaming. Certainly. Everyone who is arguing against you agrees, as far as I can tell. So, let me bridge this language barrier: If the DM is not purely punishing the characters but is in fact accurately role-playing the NPCs then it is not meta-gaming. If I read your post right, then you do not disagree. It would, however, be meta-gaming, or simply bad role-playing, for the DM to ignore a death dealing item, such as necklace of fireballs, when the NPCs would logically try to get rid of it. Especially if the DM is doing it specifically based upon OOC knowledge (read "belief") that the sunder mechanic is "broken". That is, based upon the given definition of meta-gaming. Is that somewhat more clear? |
| guru789207-15-07, 04:03 AM | Sundering is a perfectly valid tactic. I agree, most fighters would be willing to fight opponants in an attack denial sort of way, through tripping, disarming or even sunderinggear to win a fight. I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. if you sunder and destroy a weapon, you dont have to deal with it anymore. They don't pick it up, they don't have it for the rest of the fight. to be honest, id rather win a fight without gettign a magical sword than lose a fight to a magical sword armed foe (and tehy probably have other good stuff on them). This seems like DM metagaming. He's basically designing an NPC with the attitude of "it doesn't matter what happens to me so long as you suffer". I cant speak for the motives of the DM but it is possible the NPC's are thinking "it doesnt matter what happens to them as long as I Live I do think it's a little crazy for every NPC to use the exact same tactics though. Everybody learns what works very quickly when death is on the line (esp. sicilians). Go naked. Live free brother! Brilliant simply lets you ignore any armour bonuses your foe may possess. Nothing in its entry states that it is immune to sunder, and thus, we should not assume that it has such a benefit by virtue of ambiguous flavour text (for example, what is to stop me from sundering the non-brilliant part of the weapon?):) yeah, now that you mention it it does seem a little bit weird... Metagaming. It's much, MUCH easier to sunder your gloves than it actually is to hit you (in most cases). Don't believe me? Read PHB page 158 under Sundering a Worn or Carried Object. You will find that when sundering an object, you DON'T make an opposed attack check, you AREN'T subject to an AoO, and you only have to hit the AC of the object. The AC of the object is: 10+Character's Dex Mod+Item's Size Mod For a medium sized creature, the most the size mod will be is +4 (for rings) so you are looking at an AC of 18...20 tops for RINGS. This is broken and unrealistic and if the DM is explicitly taking advantage of this (or the players are) instead of trying to kill the enemy (or at least sunder the weapon....which can kill you after all) THEN THEY ARE METAGAMING. I admit some houseruling may be in order, certain protective affects should affect the whole player like mage armor or the like. Also it may not be obvious if certain charictars are wearing or using certain objects, like rings or amulets. Sundering was desinged more for weapons, sheilds, and other held items like potions, not really for rings. (although the RAR make it incredibly easy to cut down somone's pants... which is kinda nice) |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 01:57 PM | Why would a sensible fighter do this? Ever? Instead of the move-action to draw a potion, the fighter could withdraw and avoid the AoO entirely (and probably be out of range of a sunder attempt as well). Sometimes you can't withdraw, sometimes every action counts and you can't waste time, and sometimes the fighter isn't a tactical genius (especially if you're playing point buy where 99% of them are stupid). Why would the fearless night run away to chug down a potion when he's supposed to be the most courageous of the land? Yes, if you metagame with you OOC rules knowledge then it will never happen, but for roleplayers it is a completely valid scenario. You never answered the question, you just said to the effect of "that would never happen" and ignored it. It would not be metagaming since that is what the NPC would do. Again, when would this exact situation come up, ever? Well it's happened multiple times (both in games I've run and played in) so it's obviously not an impossible or even improbable situation. Like the first time a player hit a vampire in my game he five footed back and drew out a flask of holy water to throw the next action. The vamp moved foward and sundered it with his flail. Metagaming? Not at all. Now, the guy could've tried to withdraw back through all the spawn behind him and the party, but he wasn't playing an intelligent character (25 point buy fighter, so 8 intelligence wasn't an unusual thing). He played the character as he saw he would act. If he'd used the rules to do something his character would not have done, then it would have been metagaming. Why wouldn't the vampire have sundered the holy water vial? The mechanic isn't broken because of shoddy DMing. The mechanic is broken because it's easier (far easier at high levels) to hit and break an 80,000gp magical ring with a masterwork blade than it is to hit the character! I remind you that if you lose more than 25000gp in items, you are actually better off dead! But it is broken because of Shoddy DMing, because a good DM will keep you at your average wealth area for your level. Yes your character will be really hacked off that he lost his new (or old) magic ring, but that doesn't make it broken. As a player you shouldn't be ticked off at all, because you should be able to trust that your DM will keep you where you need to be. Until the mechanic is fixed, yes, I consider this both metagaming and bad GMing. I'd cry foul. Then please explain how the NPC was using OOC information. As far as I am concerned it is. If the DM is explicitly taking advantage of a broken mechanic to keep the PCs in line, then he's metagaming. And how have any of the shown cases fallen into that description? Playing the NPC as the NPC would act is not taking advantage of a mechanic. It is roleplaying. If he were to not sunder because he felt the mechanic was broken, even though the NPC would do it, then it woudl be metagaming. If the DM feels he needs to shatter all the PCs stuff to "keep them in line" then DMing is the problem again. Have you fenced? I have. TRY targeting the opponent's belt. It's an unreasonable mechanic. So how many hit points do you have? What's your AC? What's your alignment? Oh wait, we're talking about D&D. Combat is abstract, real life has no bearing on it. Hit points are an unreasonable mechanic in that regard, because when you get hit three times with a great axe, shot four times with a bow, and turned into a shishkobob with a spear you die in real life. In D&D chances are you can shrug it off if you're at any decent level. I have. When it is far easier to hit a ring than it is to hit you and none of your personal defenses protect the items that you wear, then it's a broken mechanic. If it's not obvious to you by now, then you are a hopeless case. Why are you going to hit that ring though? You have to have a reason to for it to work. That balances it out. Swords are dangerous, that's obvious. Shields protect people, that's obvious. It's normal for people to wear guantlets, amulets, rings, and belts that arn't magical though, and most magic items can look like anything. So why is the player targeting them? If he has the reason, which most of the time characters of both types don't have, then it's works fine. It is only broken if the DM never compensates the group for what they lost, which is shoddy DMing. What is going to happen if he sunders everything you have item wise? He's just spent an attack on every slot you have while chances are you been damaging him. He's hurting chances are, and you're unhurt. Broken? Not at all. Most players don't know how easy it is to sunder items, but that is not an excuse for DM metagaming. You're right here, but the two things are unrelated so you arn't going anywhere with it. I can just as easily say Most players don't know quantum physics, but that is not an excuse for DM metagaming, or Most players don't know the square root of 189456 off the top of their heads, but that is not an excuse for DM metagaming. What are you trying to prove here? Not necessary. Information in the flavor text for the PHB classes is (AFAIK) common knowledge. At worst an Int check (DC 10) would be enough. Information in flavor text for the PHB classes is (AFAIK) not common knowledge. See, I can do that too. Now, even so, I didn't read anything before the game rules section on wizards that said they prepared all their spells a long time before they cast them, or that preparing the spells took very much time at all. All it really tells about it in the general info section is that they use the spellbook to prepare the spells, which could be taken to mean they do that as they cast the spells. It also speaks of it taking years to learn the arts of magic. I don't think people that havn't devoted that time to the arts are going to casually know everything about the class as common knowledge or evern as a DC10 Int check. If the NPC is not using OOC knowledge then it is not metagaming. The mechanics do not matter. Set them aside and think about it. If it's a logical conclusion for the NPC to draw and the action is what he would take, then broken or not it's roleplaying. Explain how broken mechanics mean the same thing as metagaming. You keep saying they are, but fail to explain why or how. Your only excuse has been basically "Well the DM knows it's broken so if the NPC does it it is wrong, wahhh" which doesn't hold water at all. If the NPC would do it and the DM doesn't take the course of action then he's metagaming to not do it because the rule is broken. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 02:59 PM | Vhad, Your position has been that Sunder isn't broken because a good DM won't hose you that way. Piffle. That is not a valid defense for a broken sunder item rule, and if the DM is using it against the players (and it sounds like he is), then he is willfully taking advantage of a broken rule and as far as I am concerned is metagaming (and I wouldn't play under him more than once). -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 05:15 PM | If the DM is playing vs. the players then all the mechanics of the game are broken. My position is that it isn't broken because the character has to A.) know it's magical and B.) be able to sunder it. Metagaming can break almost any rule in the game. You are using metagaming as an excuse to consider it broken as well as costs of the items. Mechanically the PCs or NPCs for that matter will get new items to get them back on their level's wealth mark so it's not broken at all. All it does is take the items out of action for a while. It doesn't cripple the characters for the rest of their life. On the second part, all we've been told is that the DM has been sundering things. We havn't gotten a why at all from the OP that I've seen. There are two sides to every story. Is the DM metagaming? Most likely is he's sundering backpacks, but it isn't a 100% thing. I'd still like you to explain how it is metagaming for a NPC to sunder an object that IC he would? Likewise I would like you to explain how it is not metagaming for a DM to make an NPC not sunder an item he would because he thinks the rule is broken. I'm not even discussing brokeness in this situation, I'm discussing metagaming which you seem so fixated on. |
| Johnny_Angel07-15-07, 05:29 PM | The problem is that sundering items is too easy because there is almost no way a PC can protect his items (especially against the massive damage that weapons do at higher levels). The tactic is broken (or at least bent). In addition, sundering a wizard's spellbook is pure metagaming on the DM's part since sundering a spellbook has NO IMPACT on the current battle...and Spellbooks are worth a lot of money! As for holysymbols, all this tactic does is encourage cleric PCs to carry 100 wooden holy symbols (which don't have any encumberance btw). That's because the DM is metagaming. -Polaris I agree that it seems as though the DM is a metagaming a bit; however, I don't feel that sundering a spellbook or a holy symbol is always metagaming. I put myself in the position of a character in the game. "Hey, that guy seems to be using that book to zap me with lighting and scorch my nose hair with fireballs; I should figure out a way to get that book out of his hands." After all, you can't sell the spellbook if you are dead. Is sundering a little bit too easy? Maybe, but I hardly think it's nekorb when you compare it to the things that casters can do. Anyway, yes, I think it's crazy that every character in this campaign is sundering like there's no tomorrow. However, I think it's nice that melee types have at least one advantage (no matter how small) over casters. |
| Ace_of_time07-15-07, 06:48 PM | You're absolutely right it's cheap. It's metagaming on the part of the DM. What good does that do? So you get to interrupt his attack with an attack of your own. Big deal. He still gets to sunder....and you possibly give up an attack of your own (and you will if the DM is metagaming). Not only that, but the Sunder Item rule is not only broken, but it grossly favors the monsters over the PCs. Dragons (for example) don't wear many appreciable items and certainly don't get most of their power from them. Players that are potent enough to take on dragons probably do.......it's the same reason MDJ is broken if on a slightly smaller scale. -Polaris If you sunder his weapon first or disarm him he will not have a weapon to sunder you with and will not risk another AoO to do unarmed. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 08:56 PM | If you sunder his weapon first or disarm him he will not have a weapon to sunder you with and will not risk another AoO to do unarmed. Ace_of_Time, I also don't have a problem with Sundering as it applies to weapons or shields. Only items. However, if the DM is sundering items over weapons or shields (that actually influence combat after all), then he is metagaming. If the DM is taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken then as far as I am concerned he's metagaming especially if there is no way even remotely reasonable that it would work and/or the characters/NPCs would know about this. Vhad, My point is simple and remains. If the DM is hosing the party by taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken, then he is metagaming. Period. Johnny_Angel, Just because full casters are broken (esp clerics) doesn't excuse a sunder item rule that's also broken. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 09:36 PM | That hasn't been the case in the examples you've claimed were metagaming however. Doing what an NPC would do is not taking advantage of anything. It is roleplaying. As for your other point. There are times that items are more dangerous than weapons. The clerics want he's curing the fighter with every round, the necklace the rogue keeps chucking fireballs from, ect. Targeting those items isn't metagaming if the NPC realizes what is going on. You avoided the two things I asked about though. I'd still like you to explain how it is metagaming for a NPC to sunder an object that IC he would? Likewise I would like you to explain how it is not metagaming for a DM to make an NPC not sunder an item he would because he thinks the rule is broken. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 09:50 PM | That hasn't been the case in the examples you've claimed were metagaming however. Yes it is. It is because the DM is knowingly using a mechanic that is broken (but the NPCs obviously don't have a copy of the PHB so they can't know this). Doing what an NPC would do is not taking advantage of anything. It is roleplaying. Not when the mechanic is broken. If the mechanic is broken then the DM (through his NPCs) is metagaming. In fact it's clear in the OP that the DM is metagaming. Why would an NPC go after a belt and not a sword when the sword should be the easier target and the more dangerous one as well? Metagaming. Simple as that. As for your other point. There are times that items are more dangerous than weapons. The clerics want he's curing the fighter with every round, the necklace the rogue keeps chucking fireballs from, ect. Targeting those items isn't metagaming if the NPC realizes what is going on. It is if the DM is targeting items exclusively (which seems to be the case). In this case the DM is metagaming (by taking advantage of a busted rule). You avoided the two things I asked about though. I haven't avoided them. I am ignoring them because they aren't relavent....and neither is the issue of 'bad or good' DMing. If a rule requires DM constraint and intrepretation to be balanced, then the rule isn't balanced...in the same way that if a class, feat, or ability requires an RP restriction to balance it, then it isn't mechanically balanced. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-15-07, 10:14 PM | I haven't avoided them. I am ignoring them because they aren't relavent....and neither is the issue of 'bad or good' DMing. If a rule requires DM constraint and intrepretation to be balanced, then the rule isn't balanced...in the same way that if a class, feat, or ability requires an RP restriction to balance it, then it isn't mechanically balanced. Why are they not relevant? The rule doesn't require constraint or interpretation. It requires following the game rules, and RP restrictions balance abilities and classes all the time that arn't broken. Tell me with a straight face that every class that has an alignment restriction is broken. Oh the woes of the super powerful Paladin. Heaven knows he's so much more powerful than a straight druid or wizard. The game functions around the assumption that the players (this includes the DM since he plays the game as well) won't be metagaming just as Monopoly functions around the assumption that the players won't be using loaded dice. Playing the game in a way it isn't meant to be played is not proof that the game has a problem. Yes it is. It is because the DM is knowingly using a mechanic that is broken (but the NPCs obviously don't have a copy of the PHB so they can't know this). So the NPC is going to stop and think to himself, "You know that guy is curing every bit of damage the fighter is taking with that wand, but for some reason, even though I think it's a really good idea to sunder it, I'm not going to. I'm going keep hacking away despite it's uselessness." ? The NPC doesn't have a copy of the PHB. He doesn't know the mechanic is broken so he shouldn't use it. Those are OOC concepts, not IC. Not using it because it's broken is metagaming every time the NPC would logically. Not when the mechanic is broken. If the mechanic is broken then the DM (through his NPCs) is metagaming. Prove it. Give me one reason why it's metagaming when the NPC would do it. The exact opposite of what you are arguing is the case. If you believe it's broken that's fine, you havn't proven that but you can believe what you want in that regard. Is every wizard in the game metagaming when he casts his high level spells on poor fighters? No. That's what the wizard would do. Same goes here. It is if the DM is targeting items exclusively (which seems to be the case). In this case the DM is metagaming (by taking advantage of a busted rule). So realizing a wand is hurting the group more than the fighters sword, it's metagaming to bust the wand (since that is what the person would do) but not metagaming to bust the sword (Even though the wand is what the character wants to bust). If the DM decides to bust the sword instead of the wand because busting the wand is broken, then he's metagaming right there. Blatantly so. If a player that's never read the rules before decides to bust the wand in the above example would it be metagaming? No. He has no knowledge of how the rules work in that sense. He's just doing what his character would. How does having rules knowledge change that? It doesn't. The DM can metagame, and that breaks the game down, but sundering items isn't inherently just because you feel it's too easy. Until you explain the two questions I asked, you havn't proved anything. They are completely relevant to the discussion at hand. The only reason to claim they arn't is because they are true and there isn't any way to disprove them. I'd still like you to explain how it is metagaming for a NPC to sunder an object that IC he would? Likewise I would like you to explain how it is not metagaming for a DM to make an NPC not sunder an item he would because he thinks the rule is broken. |
| Polaris07-15-07, 11:09 PM | Why are they not relevant? They aren't relevant because the rule is broken. Once the rule ceases to be broken, my objections to the tactic will disapear with it. Simple as that. The rule doesn't require constraint or interpretation. It requires following the game rules, and RP restrictions balance abilities and classes all the time that arn't broken. Tell me with a straight face that every class that has an alignment restriction is broken. Oh the woes of the super powerful Paladin. Heaven knows he's so much more powerful than a straight druid or wizard. The rule does INDEED require DM constraint. Otherwise the BBEG will hire a hord of warriors that are much weaker than the party with specific orders to sunder as much as they can. That is indeed metagaming (and PC hosing) on the DM's part. There is nothing in the rules that says the DM can't do this, and there is nothing in the rules that require the party to have the wealth they are supposed to for their level. I can tell you with a straight face that YES classes with an alignment restriction are problematic and even broken including the Paladin. By broken, it doesn't mean the class (or ability) is too strong but rather isn't in line powerwise with what it should be. In the case of the Paladin, he's too weak actually. Same with the Monk. The game functions around the assumption that the players (this includes the DM since he plays the game as well) won't be metagaming just as Monopoly functions around the assumption that the players won't be using loaded dice. Playing the game in a way it isn't meant to be played is not proof that the game has a problem. Can you show me anywhere in the DMG (or other rule book) that says the DM can't metagame? You won't find it. It's not recommended (for obvious reasons), but you can't say the game revolves around the assumption the DM won't metagame. So the NPC is going to stop and think to himself, "You know that guy is curing every bit of damage the fighter is taking with that wand, but for some reason, even though I think it's a really good idea to sunder it, I'm not going to. I'm going keep hacking away despite it's uselessness." ? I will throw this right back at you. "That is a really vicious set of armor, and it would be a lot easier if I could damage the armor to make it unwearable". Guess what. The game won't let you. The same should apply for items (at least until the rule is fixed). Until then anytime you take advantage of this rule as a DM to scrag items, you are metagaming. Period. The NPC doesn't have a copy of the PHB. He doesn't know the mechanic is broken so he shouldn't use it. Those are OOC concepts, not IC. Not using it because it's broken is metagaming every time the NPC would logically. The DM knows the mechanic is broken. If the NPCs are all using a mechanic, it's because the DM is allowing them....and that means the DM is using a broken mechanic....and that means the DM is metagaming. If the mechanic wasn't broken, then the NPCs might not be metagaming. Until then they are. Prove it. Give me one reason why it's metagaming when the NPC would do it. The exact opposite of what you are arguing is the case. If you believe it's broken that's fine, you havn't proven that but you can believe what you want in that regard. Is every wizard in the game metagaming when he casts his high level spells on poor fighters? No. That's what the wizard would do. Same goes here. You're favorite build is a sunder based build isn't it? You love to sunder as a DM, don't you? I think you've come into this argument with an agenda and if that's so that means everything you say is suspect. I've already proven that the rule is broken. You can sunder rings easier than you can hit the person! If that isn't broken then nothing is. It gets worse because your items aren't protected by your armor, deflection bonuses, concealment, cover, or ANYTHING ELSE. That's broken. If you can't see that, then you don't want to. So realizing a wand is hurting the group more than the fighters sword, it's metagaming to bust the wand (since that is what the person would do) but not metagaming to bust the sword (Even though the wand is what the character wants to bust). If the DM decides to bust the sword instead of the wand because busting the wand is broken, then he's metagaming right there. Blatantly so. If the wand is being used as a weapon (or a flask is), then the weapon sunder rules would apply and those aren't broken. Otherwise, YES, until the sunder item rule is fixed, the DM is metagaming. If a player that's never read the rules before decides to bust the wand in the above example would it be metagaming? No. He has no knowledge of how the rules work in that sense. He's just doing what his character would. How does having rules knowledge change that? It doesn't. The DM can metagame, and that breaks the game down, but sundering items isn't inherently just because you feel it's too easy. Yes it does. Rules knowledge changes everything because you are deliberately cheating by using a broken rule Until you explain the two questions I asked, you havn't proved anything. They are completely relevant to the discussion at hand. The only reason to claim they arn't is because they are true and there isn't any way to disprove them. I don't have to prove anything to you. Until the sunder item rule is fixed, any use of it by the DM is metagaming. [Which should be incentive enough for groups to fix it. WOTC ARE YOU LISTENING!?!] -Polaris |
| guru789207-15-07, 11:57 PM | I don't have to prove anything to you. I know, but I'm still quoting you... Until the sunder item rule is fixed, any use of it by the DM is metagaming. [Which should be incentive enough for groups to fix it. WOTC ARE YOU LISTENING!?!] What about treating items as one size catagory smaller than what they are? Dimunitive items get a +16 to AC as a result. or should we overhaul the whole system? |
| Ace_of_time07-16-07, 12:03 AM | Ace_of_Time, I also don't have a problem with Sundering as it applies to weapons or shields. Only items. However, if the DM is sundering items over weapons or shields (that actually influence combat after all), then he is metagaming. If the DM is taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken then as far as I am concerned he's metagaming especially if there is no way even remotely reasonable that it would work and/or the characters/NPCs would know about this. Vhad, My point is simple and remains. If the DM is hosing the party by taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken, then he is metagaming. Period. Johnny_Angel, Just because full casters are broken (esp clerics) doesn't excuse a sunder item rule that's also broken. -Polaris I was giving the player some advice. never said It was or wasn't meta. Still crappy thing to do ether way. |
| Polaris07-16-07, 12:08 AM | What about treating items as one size catagory smaller than what they are? Dimunitive items get a +16 to AC as a result. or should we overhaul the whole system? I think the whole Sunder Item system needs to be overhauled (since your suggestion doesn't really fix the problem). I note that the sunder item system is substanatively different than any other sunder rule in the game. Thus my suggestions would be (pick one): 1. Items are treated as armour, i.e. they are not sunderable unless used as a weapon or shield explicitly. IMX this is the most common (albeit usually unstated) houserule. 2. Items use the same rules as weapons and shields, i.e. you have to beat the defender in a contest of attack rolls. 3. The AC of an item is the same as it's wearer plus the item's size bonus (if any). All protections that apply to the wearer also apply to the worn item (which btw is how saves work for worn items). -Polaris |
| locustechpriest07-16-07, 12:55 AM | 1. Items are treated as armour, i.e. they are not sunderable unless used as a weapon or shield explicitly. IMX this is the most common (albeit usually unstated) houserule. 2. Items use the same rules as weapons and shields, i.e. you have to beat the defender in a contest of attack rolls. 3. The AC of an item is the same as it's wearer plus the item's size bonus (if any). All protections that apply to the wearer also apply to the worn item (which btw is how saves work for worn items). Well, the annoying 3 page argument aside, I guess I will try to be helpful. 1. Absurd. Lets get rid of options, shall we. I for one, am in favor of sundering body parts (which yes, requires a houserule), so this is out of the question. Also, if you think about it, sundering armor has you cutting striaght through a limb or torso. The concept is useless at that point. If you sunder a ring, chances are you get a finger, too. In that respect alone they are similar. 2. The idea behind the contested attack roll is that they are in the person's hand. If the holy symbol is in his hand, then yes, do that. 3. The reason that items get saves is because they are effectively part of the person in some respects (although I cannot rationalize fort saves). Teleportation and polymorph for example. If the item is not under his armor, then it shouldn't get the bonus. Some things would spill over of course, such as dexterity, deflection and dodge bonuses (others may apply). Here's the basic deal (and you are welcome to reject it as even more "broken"): ~You can sunder anything, living or not. ~Sundering a held object requires an opposed attack roll. ~Same may apply to objects worn on the hands or arms (rings, gloves, bracers). ~Items not held are protected by any logically protective effect, such as the wearer's mobility or deflective fields, and benefit also from their size. |
| Polaris07-16-07, 02:33 AM | Well, the annoying 3 page argument aside, I guess I will try to be helpful. 1. Absurd. Lets get rid of options, shall we. I for one, am in favor of sundering body parts (which yes, requires a houserule), so this is out of the question. Also, if you think about it, sundering armor has you cutting striaght through a limb or torso. The concept is useless at that point. If you sunder a ring, chances are you get a finger, too. In that respect alone they are similar. There is nothing "absurd" about this suggestion. In fact for armour this is the written rule. You can not sunder armor at all. Already DnD is eliminating options since in real combat you CAN sunder armor (by cutting the support straps and finding weak points in the armor). In short sundering armour is not a useless concept especially when you consider that in the game, RAW, you can sunder boots, rings, and/or bracers and the same objection should logically apply. Fact is (at least IMX) this option is in fact the most common way this problem is houseruled albeit usually by default. The players and DM have non-agression pact (often unspoken) that this is a tactic neither will use. 2. The idea behind the contested attack roll is that they are in the person's hand. If the holy symbol is in his hand, then yes, do that. Yet, RAW that isn't the way it's done. Basically what you are going is putting "hit locations" in DnD and that doesn't work very well in the d20 system (it works wonderfully in other systems, but other systems handle sundering so much better....) The point is that there should be a simple and universal rule for handling items regardless of body location because DnD is not senstive to body location in the combat system. 3. The reason that items get saves is because they are effectively part of the person in some respects (although I cannot rationalize fort saves). How is that different for sundering? Teleportation and polymorph for example. If the item is not under his armor, then it shouldn't get the bonus. Some things would spill over of course, such as dexterity, deflection and dodge bonuses (others may apply). The armor bonus should apply or else you get into the 'hit location' problem. DnD combat is generic, and if you try to determine what is over and under armour then you are adding a hit-location mechanic in the game which is a no-no. After all, the armour doesn't cover every body part (usually), but you don't get to bypass armor in DnD by declaring a penalty and going after an exposed body part. The combat system completely breaks down if you do. Items should be no different. A worn item is part of your character and thus is entitled to the same defense of your character....the precedent has already been set for saving throws, and should carry over to AC and other personal defenses. Here's the basic deal (and you are welcome to reject it as even more "broken"): ~You can sunder anything, living or not. Rejected. On this road lies hit-location. Sundering a living being in DnD is meaningless anyway (unlike other systems). ~Sundering a held object requires an opposed attack roll. I don't have too many objections to this other than the fact you are losing universality and imposing a hit-location mechanic. ~Same may apply to objects worn on the hands or arms (rings, gloves, bracers). ~Items not held are protected by any logically protective effect, such as the wearer's mobility or deflective fields, and benefit also from their size. Say rather that an item you wear is entitled to the same defense you are plus a size modifier depending on the item. After all in DnD, your gear IS part of your character and should be treated as such (and is for saving throws). -Polaris |
| Johnny_Angel07-16-07, 08:45 AM | My point is simple and remains. If the DM is hosing the party by taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken, then he is metagaming. Period. Johnny_Angel, Just because full casters are broken (esp clerics) doesn't excuse a sunder item rule that's also broken. -Polaris So, are you saying that the DM should never use wizards and clerics as enemies because "he knows they are broken"? A lot of the classes in the game aren't nearly as "broken" or "underpowered" as people say they are if you actually use a lot of the rules that most people ignore. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned that sundering favors creatures such as dragons because they don't use items. Well, look what we have here, a situation in which the monk becomes useful: a class which is constantly being said to be "underpowered." Thus my suggestions would be (pick one): 1. Items are treated as armour, i.e. they are not sunderable unless used as a weapon or shield explicitly. IMX this is the most common (albeit usually unstated) houserule. -Polaris IMX that has never been a house rule; IMX houserules are always mentioned. An unstated houserule? Player: I sunder. DM: You can't. Player: Why not? DM: It's a house rule. Player: Since when? DM: Always Player: You never said anything about it before. DM: That's because it's one of my unstated house rules. Player: :confused: It's your opinion that a DM sundering is metagaming; I don't share that opinion, so it's just a difference of opinion I guess. If I'm in a battle (and I have been...just not with swords and magic,) my first priority is to survive. Unless there's a specific reason that I need or want an item that the enemy has, I have no qualms about destroying their equipment. Like I said before, I can't sell loot if I'm dead -no matter how much it's worth. |
| Leilond07-16-07, 08:50 AM | It's not a matter of "the DM cannot sunder" It's a matter of "if the DM sunder always and costantly it can end in a loss of fun for the players" One of the fun in this game is ALSO having your beloved sword that you use for 5-6 levels before uprading or changing it. Losing it once or two times, during a 10-15 level campaign can be a very dramatic and addictive moment. Losing your weapon every battle is annoying Thus, the DM is perfectly entitled to sunder PC's weapon. The DM can do it every time he want. But Are the players having fun? I think that's more important |
| J_Vhad07-16-07, 10:01 AM | They aren't relevant because the rule is broken. Once the rule ceases to be broken, my objections to the tactic will disapear with it. Simple as that. Show me where broken rule=metagaming. It doesn't. The definitions arn't even the same. A broken rule is a rule that doesn't work (generally used to describe things that are overpowered). Metagaming is using OOC knowledge in IC. Those are not the same things. They are completely relevant, because they show that metagaming and broken do not share a definition. They show that NOT using the broken rules can be considered metagaming. So unless you disprove them, your point is invalid. You can say the rule is broken all you want, that is opinion. The claim that it's metagaming, however, is an argument over fact, and the fact is that it is not metagaming just because the rule is broken. The rule does INDEED require DM constraint. Otherwise the BBEG will hire a hord of warriors that are much weaker than the party with specific orders to sunder as much as they can. That is indeed metagaming (and PC hosing) on the DM's part. There is nothing in the rules that says the DM can't do this, and there is nothing in the rules that require the party to have the wealth they are supposed to for their level. What reasoning does the BBEG have for doing this? Does he automatically know what every item the heroes have is? Did he sleep them and identify all their gear? Yes it's metagaming to assume the character knows what all the players gear is IC when the character has no reason to know. No one has been arguing against that. The problem is you keep saying that sundering items is ALWAYS metagaming just because the rule is broken. The two arn't the same thing. You're right there is nothing in the rules that state "You must follow the rules". The basic assumption is that you will be following them though. You can't argue something is broken or metagaming because the DM decided not to follow the rules. That's like arguing fighters are broken because the DM decided two handed weapons auto-kill on crits. It's broken in that game, but not in D&D as a whole. Can you show me anywhere in the DMG (or other rule book) that says the DM can't metagame? You won't find it. It's not recommended (for obvious reasons), but you can't say the game revolves around the assumption the DM won't metagame. No, it won't be there. The game is a role-playing game. Why would it assume you weren't going to play it as one. Does Monopoly state you can't use loaded dice? Does it state that Fighters can't leap 80 ft. in the air and shoot 20D20 fireballs from their eyes? No. It's assumed you will play the game as it's meant to be played and follow the rules. I obviously can say the game revolves around the assumption that the DM won't metagame since I already have, disprove it if you don't believe it. Apparently you've gotten into this belief that saying "It doesn't work that way" or something similar is proof. It is not. Use the game and rules please. I will throw this right back at you. "That is a really vicious set of armor, and it would be a lot easier if I could damage the armor to make it unwearable". Guess what. The game won't let you. The same should apply for items (at least until the rule is fixed). Until then anytime you take advantage of this rule as a DM to scrag items, you are metagaming. Period. Which shows the designers didn't feel that sundering items was overpowered or broken. Otherwise they would have use the same ruling on them. Thanks for helping my point. The DM knows the mechanic is broken. If the NPCs are all using a mechanic, it's because the DM is allowing them....and that means the DM is using a broken mechanic....and that means the DM is metagaming. If the mechanic wasn't broken, then the NPCs might not be metagaming. Until then they are. Proof please. Show me that using a broken mechanic when it fits the character is metagaming. You're contradicting yourself here. It's metagaming for NPC A to bust the wand at the moment. If it's errataed it's not metagaming for NPC A to bust the wand since the rule won't be broken. You're favorite build is a sunder based build isn't it? You love to sunder as a DM, don't you? I think you've come into this argument with an agenda and if that's so that means everything you say is suspect. I've already proven that the rule is broken. You can sunder rings easier than you can hit the person! If that isn't broken then nothing is. It gets worse because your items aren't protected by your armor, deflection bonuses, concealment, cover, or ANYTHING ELSE. That's broken. If you can't see that, then you don't want to. You can think what you want. This discussion is not about my preferences. The problem is that you havn't proven the mechanic is broken. You've tried to do so by saying it's unrealistic, and that it's easier than you feel it should be. Why should you items be protected by you armor? Deflection? They grant bonuses to you. Not you and everything you own. It's the same action in both cases, the NPC decides to do it for the same reason in both cases, it's not metagaming in either case. Shoddy DMing if every NPC uses it? Probably. Metagaming? Possibly. Automatically both? No. If the wand is being used as a weapon (or a flask is), then the weapon sunder rules would apply and those aren't broken. Otherwise, YES, until the sunder item rule is fixed, the DM is metagaming. Again your contradicting yourself. It's either metagaming in a specific instance or it's not. The rules have no bearing on this. If the NPC would logically do it with his IC knowledge, it is not metagaming. If the NPC would not do it with his IC knowledge it is metagamin. Please look up what metagaming is if you're going to argue what is and isn't. Yes it does. Rules knowledge changes everything because you are deliberately cheating by using a broken rule Doing what an NPC would do is not deliberatly cheating, it's roleplaying the NPC. Again there is a contradiction here. Either the action in that specific case is metagaming or not. It isn't not metagaming when the newb does it and metagaming when the vet does it if both have the same IC reasons for doing it. Newb: I bust that vial on his belt that looks like the one he just drank that closed the wound on his chest. DM: OK, the vials shatters, liquid rushing down the gleaming plate-mail. As the smell of cinnamon reaches your nose the man turns toward you, his eyes glaring as he brings his sword around. Whatcha doing Johnny? Johnny: I'm going to bust that other vial on his belt. Keep him from rehealing on us again. DM: You can't. Johnny: Why? DM: It's metagaming. Johnny: But Newb just did it. DM: But he doesn't know the rules. Johnny: But I just watched him do it. DM: It's not metagaming for him. Johnny: Why isn't it the same? DM: You know the rules and he doesn't. That is an example of shoddy DMing at it's greatest, yet is exactly what would happen by what you stated. I don't have to prove anything to you. Until the sunder item rule is fixed, any use of it by the DM is metagaming. [Which should be incentive enough for groups to fix it. WOTC ARE YOU LISTENING!?!] You're right, you don't HAVE to prove anything to me. However, your point is completely invalid until you do. You've cast of every point you can't inalidate as irrelevant just because you can't prove your point. Sundering items is not metagaming. It can be, but isn't always. The bottom line is: 1.)If a DM does not do what the NPC would normally do because of OOC knowledge he is metagaming. 2.)If the DM does what and NPC wold not normally do because of OOC knowledge he is metagaming. 99% of the time what you have suggested falls into the first category. (The NPC would bust the item, but the DM doesn't because HE feels the rule is overpowered. Hence he's not doing what NPC would do due to OOC knowledge). Using rules knowledge to not do something broken when the NPC would IS metagaming. Basically what you are going is putting "hit locations" in DnD and that doesn't work very well in the d20 system (it works wonderfully in other systems, but other systems handle sundering so much better....) The point is that there should be a simple and universal rule for handling items regardless of body location because DnD is not senstive to body location in the combat system. How so? You already do the same thing he suggested there for weapons and shields. It isn't going into hit location systems any more than RAW already does. It's just using the rules already in place to cover more things. I disagree with the second part too. DM is sensitive to body location. Weapons vs. worn items being sundered is an example. As is retrieving a item from a belt opposed to retrieving one from a backpack. Just because they are few and far between doesn't mean they arn't there. How is that different for sundering? It isn't. Do you get deflection, armor, and shield bonuses to your saves? Do you make saves vs. attack rolls? Why should it be different for sundering? The armor bonus should apply or else you get into the 'hit location' problem. DnD combat is generic, and if you try to determine what is over and under armour then you are adding a hit-location mechanic in the game which is a no-no. No, you're getting into a slot's mechanic which is already in the game. Thanks for trying though. A worn item is part of your character and thus is entitled to the same defense of your character....the precedent has already been set for saving throws, and should carry over to AC and other personal defenses. Saving throws don't get deflection bonuses, armor bonuses, ect. (other AC bonuses) so why should items get them when they apply to a character? Nothing says you deflection bonus protects everything you wear. It protects you. Why would natural armor protect everything you wear? Armor? Rejected. On this road lies hit-location. Sundering a living being in DnD is meaningless anyway (unlike other systems). Hydras disagree. I don't have too many objections to this other than the fact you are losing universality and imposing a hit-location mechanic. Not anymore than are already there. Say rather that an item you wear is entitled to the same defense you are plus a size modifier depending on the item. After all in DnD, your gear IS part of your character and should be treated as such (and is for saving throws). This has no less faults in logic than the rules right now, and isn't balanced any more. Why would natural armor apply to a characters belt? Do most bugbears sew their belst under their skin now? I'm not arguing the balance of sundering at the moment with you, just stating that you can't claim one thing is horribly unreasonable and needs to be redone due to it's illogical nature then claim another illogical thing is better. Mechanically it could work, although, I still fail to see why bonuses like deflection and natural armor would benefit everything you wear. Looks like its time to strap the halfling cleric to your back since he'll get all your bonuses. Lets' open some new cans of worms. It's not a matter of "the DM cannot sunder" It's a matter of "if the DM sunder always and costantly it can end in a loss of fun for the players" One of the fun in this game is ALSO having your beloved sword that you use for 5-6 levels before uprading or changing it. Losing it once or two times, during a 10-15 level campaign can be a very dramatic and addictive moment. Losing your weapon every battle is annoying Thus, the DM is perfectly entitled to sunder PC's weapon. The DM can do it every time he want. But Are the players having fun? I think that's more important Well the discussion seems to be whether or not it's always metagaming to sunder items. I agree, sundering is not fun, and should only be used occaisionally UNLESS the PCs do something specifically asking for it. (Wizard begins smacking people with his spellbook, he's asking to get it cleaved through.) |
| Leilond07-16-07, 10:17 AM | Well the discussion seems to be whether or not it's always metagaming to sunder items. The discussion is MOVED to that ;) By the way, I didn't wanted to move on that field, but I will, because I think that opinion of another guy can help Sundering is a bad rule... only because it's too easy to sunder things. A fighter with an adamantine two handed sword, can sunder nearly every weapon with a simple shot... and it's bad, for the game, for the fun But it's not "metagaming". Metagaming is "make a creature use knowledge that isn't supposed to have". For example, if your "dire wolf" sunder weapons, you're metagaming, because a wolf is an animal and do not know the meaning of "swords" But if a ranger stay 10' feet from me, hitting a fighter with his +1 flame arrows, it is perfectly belivable that the fighter take that damn 5 foot step and cut the bow in half. It perfectly fit the fighter knowledge and a perfectly doable tactic. Thus, sundering isn't metagame "itself", like trowing a fireball isn't metagame itself, unless the DM do not use that spell against a character that used "resist energy" without the wizard has any clue of the spell casted I agree, sundering is not fun, and should only be used occaisionally UNLESS the PCs do something specifically asking for it. (Wizard begins smacking people with his spellbook, he's asking to get it cleaved through.) That's the issue. There must be some "in game reason" to use it, not because it is "metagame", but because it isn't fun |
| Polaris07-16-07, 01:36 PM | So, are you saying that the DM should never use wizards and clerics as enemies because "he knows they are broken"? Yes, quite possibly. Certainly the DM should never use broken builds like "Cheater of Mystara" or Pun-Pun against the player. A lot of the classes in the game aren't nearly as "broken" or "underpowered" as people say they are if you actually use a lot of the rules that most people ignore. An RP restriction is not a restriction. That's the problem (esp with clerics). In one of your earlier posts you mentioned that sundering favors creatures such as dragons because they don't use items. Well, look what we have here, a situation in which the monk becomes useful: a class which is constantly being said to be "underpowered." A broken tactic does not balance a weak class. Down this road lies the 3.0 Psion. IMX that has never been a house rule; IMX houserules are always mentioned. An unstated houserule? Player: I sunder. DM: You can't. Player: Why not? DM: It's a house rule. Player: Since when? DM: Always Player: You never said anything about it before. DM: That's because it's one of my unstated house rules. Player: :confused: Unstated houserules happen all the time. If a group never uses sunder by (implicit) mutual agreement, then the "no sunder item" houserule is in effect no matter that it's unstated. Most games are full of unstated houserules. It's your opinion that a DM sundering is metagaming; I don't share that opinion, so it's just a difference of opinion I guess. If I'm in a battle (and I have been...just not with swords and magic,) my first priority is to survive. Unless there's a specific reason that I need or want an item that the enemy has, I have no qualms about destroying their equipment. Like I said before, I can't sell loot if I'm dead -no matter how much it's worth. No. You are misrepresenting my position. I am not saying that sundering is metagaming. I am saying that sundering items is metagaming becaue the DM is taking advantage of a rule he knows is broken. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-16-07, 01:59 PM | Well if there is this much debate on the subject, then chances are he doesn't KNOW that sunder is broken first off. Secondly, the DM knowing the rules has no impact on whether or not something is metagaming. When a hostile NPC attacks a character is it metagaming? Metagaming is using OOC knowledge IC. That's it. You've failed to show that sundering items is always that. The DM doesn't use the sundering rules IC ever. He uses them for the mechanics of the game. Just like the player never rolls to attack IC, he rolls in the mechanics of the game. An RP restriction is not a restriction. That's the problem (esp with clerics). What is it then? RP RESTRICTION tends to make it a restriction in my opinion. What does an RP restriction do? It restricts you to a certain style of playing in character when using/becoming/doing whatever the restriction is on. Now if your group doesn't roleplay then of coures it's not a restriction. That is not a fault of the game, it's a fault of the group. |
| Polaris07-16-07, 02:02 PM | Show me where broken rule=metagaming. It doesn't. The definitions arn't even the same. A broken rule is a rule that doesn't work (generally used to describe things that are overpowered). Metagaming is using OOC knowledge in IC. Those are not the same things. That's right. They generally are different things. However, in the case of sundering items, the DM is using a rule he knows is broken and using his DM knowledge to hurt the characters in the worst possible way (as I pointed out earlier, even death is better than losing items past a certain point). That most certainly is metagaming. It's targeting items because it's easy rather than targeting swords and shields that becomes metagaming. They are completely relevant, because they show that metagaming and broken do not share a definition. They show that NOT using the broken rules can be considered metagaming. In this case, however, they intersect. So unless you disprove them, your point is invalid. You can say the rule is broken all you want, that is opinion. The claim that it's metagaming, however, is an argument over fact, and the fact is that it is not metagaming just because the rule is broken. The way sunder is being used in the OP's post (and frankly the way sunder is used 99.99 of the time) is certainly metagaming. Targeting ITEMS instead of weapons is almost certainly metagaming by any standard. What reasoning does the BBEG have for doing this? Does he automatically know what every item the heroes have is? Did he sleep them and identify all their gear? This is why sundering items is metagaming along with the fact the mechanic is broken. Yes it's metagaming to assume the character knows what all the players gear is IC when the character has no reason to know. No one has been arguing against that. The problem is you keep saying that sundering items is ALWAYS metagaming just because the rule is broken. The two arn't the same thing. This is almost always the case, is the case in the OP's post, and IMX has always been the case. You're right there is nothing in the rules that state "You must follow the rules". The basic assumption is that you will be following them though. You can't argue something is broken or metagaming because the DM decided not to follow the rules. That's like arguing fighters are broken because the DM decided two handed weapons auto-kill on crits. It's broken in that game, but not in D&D as a whole. There is no rule that says the DM can't be prick. You won't find it (unfortunately). No, it won't be there. The game is a role-playing game. Why would it assume you weren't going to play it as one. Does Monopoly state you can't use loaded dice? Does it state that Fighters can't leap 80 ft. in the air and shoot 20D20 fireballs from their eyes? No. It's assumed you will play the game as it's meant to be played and follow the rules. I obviously can say the game revolves around the assumption that the DM won't metagame since I already have, disprove it if you don't believe it. Actually when throwing dice there are rules against loaded dice. What I am talking about here is not the same thing. You are claiming that a DM that abuses the sunder item rule is breaking the rules. Um....newsflash....no he isn't. Which shows the designers didn't feel that sundering items was overpowered or broken. Otherwise they would have use the same ruling on them. Thanks for helping my point. The designers didn't think 3.0 haste or polymorph was broken either. Your point? It's metagaming for NPC A to bust the wand at the moment. If it's errataed it's not metagaming for NPC A to bust the wand since the rule won't be broken. That's not a contradiction. You can think what you want. This discussion is not about my preferences. The problem is that you havn't proven the mechanic is broken. You've tried to do so by saying it's unrealistic, and that it's easier than you feel it should be. Why should you items be protected by you armor? Deflection? They grant bonuses to you. Not you and everything you own. It's the same action in both cases, the NPC decides to do it for the same reason in both cases, it's not metagaming in either case. Shoddy DMing if every NPC uses it? Probably. Metagaming? Possibly. Automatically both? No. Then you are the only one here that doesn't think the Sunder Item mechanic is broken. Go read PHB page 158 again. Again I ask you if Sunder is your favorite mechanic. I have proven that even a MW sword can sunder pretty much any item in the game, and the most AC an item will realistically have is about 20....and NO protections that the character has on will protect the item. That makes this attack easier than a touch attack. Seems broken to me (and from what I can tell to most people here). Again your contradicting yourself. It's either metagaming in a specific instance or it's not. The rules have no bearing on this. If the NPC would logically do it with his IC knowledge, it is not metagaming. If the NPC would not do it with his IC knowledge it is metagamin. Please look up what metagaming is if you're going to argue what is and isn't. If you are taking advantage of a rule that OOC you know is broken, then you are metagaming no matter how well you can justifiy it IC. The player that twinks up a Cheater of Mystara is metagaming no matter how beautifully he tries to justify it IC. Doing what an NPC would do is not deliberatly cheating, it's roleplaying the NPC. If it's using a rule, the DM (but not NPC) knows is broken, then it's cheating. Again there is a contradiction here. Either the action in that specific case is metagaming or not. It isn't not metagaming when the newb does it and metagaming when the vet does it if both have the same IC reasons for doing it. Please. You know better than that. Intentions do matter and knowledge does matter especially when it comes to metagaming. Newb: I bust that vial on his belt that looks like the one he just drank that closed the wound on his chest. DM: OK, the vials shatters, liquid rushing down the gleaming plate-mail. As the smell of cinnamon reaches your nose the man turns toward you, his eyes glaring as he brings his sword around. Whatcha doing Johnny? Johnny: I'm going to bust that other vial on his belt. Keep him from rehealing on us again. DM: You can't. Johnny: Why? DM: It's metagaming. Johnny: But Newb just did it. DM: But he doesn't know the rules. Johnny: But I just watched him do it. DM: It's not metagaming for him. Johnny: Why isn't it the same? DM: You know the rules and he doesn't. That is an example of shoddy DMing at it's greatest, yet is exactly what would happen by what you stated. No. The DM would pull out his DMG and explain to the noob why the sunder item mechanic is broken...and if he really wants to go ahead with this attack knowing that in the future all enemies can take advantage of the same tactic. Also how many DMs do YOU know of describe the enemies down to the last beltbuckle? BOOOORING...yet that's what you would need to make this example work. You're right, you don't HAVE to prove anything to me. However, your point is completely invalid until you do. You've cast of every point you can't inalidate as irrelevant just because you can't prove your point. Sundering items is not metagaming. It can be, but isn't always. How so? You already do the same thing he suggested there for weapons and shields. It isn't going into hit location systems any more than RAW already does. It's just using the rules already in place to cover more things. I disagree with the second part too. DM is sensitive to body location. Weapons vs. worn items being sundered is an example. As is retrieving a item from a belt opposed to retrieving one from a backpack. Just because they are few and far between doesn't mean they arn't there. It isn't. Do you get deflection, armor, and shield bonuses to your saves? Do you make saves vs. attack rolls? Why should it be different for sundering? You do get resistance, luck, and competence bonuses to saves, and many of those DO come from items. Thus the cloak of resistance makes it more likely that the ring of fire-resistance will make it's fort save (for example). AC shouldn't be any different. Weak argument. No, you're getting into a slot's mechanic which is already in the game. Thanks for trying though. False. You are using the slot mechanic as a way to target individual locations...and that is hit location. Otherwise you get this "lovely" mechanic: Player 1: I sunder the warlord's helmet (which hapens to be a magic item)! DM: OK, hit AC XX (low AC just for the size of the head and dex mod) Player 1: (rolls d20 and damage dice) I hit! DM: The helm is cloven in twain on the ground. Player 2: OK, I now swing my sword at the warlord's bare head. DM: OK, hit AC YY (much higher base AC for warload), and roll %ile for miss chance. Player 2: Why? Player 1 just hit the warlord in the head. Why can't I? Or are you suggesting that hitting the bare head is harder than hitting a helmet? *argument ensues* See the problem here. If you DON'T allow protective items and magic to apply to the ENTIRE character (including items), then you open up the spectre of hit-location. Saving throws don't get deflection bonuses, armor bonuses, ect. (other AC bonuses) so why should items get them when they apply to a character? Nothing says you deflection bonus protects everything you wear. It protects you. Why would natural armor protect everything you wear? Armor? Why should the resistance bonus from a cloak of resistance protect my boots and helmet (yet they do)? Why should the bonus froma luckstone protect my spellbook (yet it does)? Armor class doesn't get resistance bonuses, and competance bonuses, yet they help the entire character for saving throws (including all items). You are being inconsistant. Hydras disagree. Hydras are an explicit special case. So are Kraken. They are written the way they are BECAUSE the normal combat system doesn't handle hit location. If anything hydras make my case because the special rules for hydras wouldn't need to exist otherwise. This has no less faults in logic than the rules right now, and isn't balanced any more. Why would natural armor apply to a characters belt? Do most bugbears sew their belst under their skin now? Why would a chain shirt protect your legs (it does though in the game). Same-same. -Polaris |
| Polaris07-16-07, 02:09 PM | Well if there is this much debate on the subject, then chances are he doesn't KNOW that sunder is broken first off. Actually you are the one generating much of the noise, and IMHO it's a smokescreen. Whether or not others agree that this is metagaming (and I have yet to change my mind on this), the rule most certainly is busted (for items anyway) and you seem to be about the only one that is seriously disputing this. Secondly, the DM knowing the rules has no impact on whether or not something is metagaming. That just isn't true. When a hostile NPC attacks a character is it metagaming? Maybe. Depends. Metagaming is using OOC knowledge IC. That's it. You've failed to show that sundering items is always that. It is because you are using a mechanic that OOC you know is broken for a tactic that IC is iffy at best. Thus you are basing your decision to attack (always) on OOC knowledge. If the rule were fixed, my objections would vanish. The DM doesn't use the sundering rules IC ever. He uses them for the mechanics of the game. Just like the player never rolls to attack IC, he rolls in the mechanics of the game. Sure he does. If the BBEG hires a bunch of goons to destroy as much gear as possible via sunder than he is certainly metagaming (because the DM has knowledge of the mechanical rules that the BBEG doesn't and is using it). What is it then? RP RESTRICTION tends to make it a restriction in my opinion. What does an RP restriction do? It restricts you to a certain style of playing in character when using/becoming/doing whatever the restriction is on. It's flavor text. This issue was addressed in the DMG2 in fact. An RP restriction is not a restriction....because you can not control how each group will interact with the RP restriction (if at all) and how each group will interact with it. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-16-07, 03:16 PM | In this case, however, they intersect. You've still failed to show that. You've shown they can intersect, not that they do intersect all the time, which is what you've been claiming. The way sunder is being used in the OP's post (and frankly the way sunder is used 99.99 of the time) is certainly metagaming. Targeting ITEMS instead of weapons is almost certainly metagaming by any standard. Sometimes, not all the time. Againt you've yet to prove it always is. You just keep claiming that as if the claim itself is proof. This is why sundering items is metagaming along with the fact the mechanic is broken. No, it's why sometimes it's metagaming. It's one case. I've shown many other cases that weren't. You brought up that example of metagaming as though it were proof that it always is. I fail to picture Saruman gathering a bunch of orcs and telling them "alright guys, just go bust up their stuff now, I know it must be magical", however, I coul definately see him telling the orc chieftan to break the one guys horn, because it's a symbol. It demoralizes the fellowship. Roleplaying games should be roleplayed, it's an assumed that they will be in the rules. If you try to play a game of Monopoly but decide not to use the board, is it a problem with the game that you never know what property you're on? No. It's a problem with how you're playing the game. There is no rule that says the DM can't be prick. You won't find it (unfortunately). And? Shoddy DMing isn't proof that something is a bad mechanic or that it is always metagaming. If your DM is being a prick about everything and playing the game vs. the group rather than with the group, then it's a DM problem. Not the games, not the mechanics. Actually when throwing dice there are rules against loaded dice. What I am talking about here is not the same thing. You are claiming that a DM that abuses the sunder item rule is breaking the rules. Um....newsflash....no he isn't. No, I'm claiming that if the DM is metagaming he's not roleplaying, and thus no longer playing D&D. D&D is a roleplaying game, not a metagaming game. That's not a contradiction. Yes, it was. Either the NPC is using OOC knowledge or not. The mechanics to carry out that action are irrelevant. It's the knowledge that pushes him to take the action that needs to be looked at to see if it is metagaming or not. A good DM will not do something because the rules are easy for it, he will do it because the NPC would do it. Roleplaying is a key to playing a roleplaying game...what a breatkthrough in thought. Then you are the only one here that doesn't think the Sunder Item mechanic is broken. Go read PHB page 158 again. Again I ask you if Sunder is your favorite mechanic. I have proven that even a MW sword can sunder pretty much any item in the game, and the most AC an item will realistically have is about 20....and NO protections that the character has on will protect the item. That makes this attack easier than a touch attack. Seems broken to me (and from what I can tell to most people here). Did your DM break all your stuf and make you cry? Are you just upset that your group calls foul if you break their stuff? See I can ask about your preferences and motivation as well, but it's meaningless to the debate. Many other people have said it's wonky or not fun, but most havn't said it's broken. A Masterwork sword in the hands of a raging barbarian shouldn't be able to cut through a necklace? If you are taking advantage of a rule that OOC you know is broken, then you are metagaming no matter how well you can justifiy it IC. The player that twinks up a Cheater of Mystara is metagaming no matter how beautifully he tries to justify it IC. Using a rule does not equal taking advantage of a rule. They are not the same. Likewise, if the player is making a character and builds it up through RP of his character that happens to be broken, that is not metagaming. He didn't use OOC knowledge IC. He used OOC knowledge IM (in mechanics) they are not the same thing. Please. You know better than that. Intentions do matter and knowledge does matter especially when it comes to metagaming. As long as the knowledge is IC (th guy just drank that healing potion and has three more on his belt) then that's all that matters. The mechanics have no effect on metagaming. They are a way to carry out character actions, that is it. No. The DM would pull out his DMG and explain to the noob why the sunder item mechanic is broken...and if he really wants to go ahead with this attack knowing that in the future all enemies can take advantage of the same tactic. Also how many DMs do YOU know of describe the enemies down to the last beltbuckle? BOOOORING...yet that's what you would need to make this example work. Just because your DM can't pull it off doesn't make it boring, and this is yet another contradiction. I'm sorry Timmy but you need six tickets to liv...err I mean you're doing nothing wrong and the rules are in the PHB, but I can't let you do it because it would be metagaming. Doesn't work. Knowing the mechanics to do things IC, does not equal metagaming. Otherwise it would be metagaming every time you attacked and rolled a D20. Player: I rolled a natural 20, Thorag hits the goblin. DM: No he doesn't, you're metagaming. Player: But..but...I rolled a natural 20, and how did I metagame, he just hit me for 12 damage. DM: Ya, but you used OOC knowledge to determine that a natural 20 hit, I don't take metagaming in my games so you miss. Thats absurd. False. You are using the slot mechanic as a way to target individual locations...and that is hit location. Otherwise you get this "lovely" mechanic: Player 1: I sunder the warlord's helmet (which hapens to be a magic item)! DM: OK, hit AC XX (low AC just for the size of the head and dex mod) Player 1: (rolls d20 and damage dice) I hit! DM: The helm is cloven in twain on the ground. Player 2: OK, I now swing my sword at the warlord's bare head. DM: OK, hit AC YY (much higher base AC for warload), and roll %ile for miss chance. Player 2: Why? Player 1 just hit the warlord in the head. Why can't I? Or are you suggesting that hitting the bare head is harder than hitting a helmet? *argument ensues* See the problem here. If you DON'T allow protective items and magic to apply to the ENTIRE character (including items), then you open up the spectre of hit-location. Or the player would hit the guy in the head and roll damage as normal. The Player doesn't have to put the force of a killing blow into a swing to destroy the helmet, just enough to break it (Usually there is a big difference in the HP of the item and character by the level they have magic helms). Hit Points are an abstract system. Doesn't matter where you hit, they do the same unless you get a crit or precision damage, ect. You arn't opening up a new can of worms at all, everything you've spoke of is already there. A PC can describe how his attack hits if he wants unless the DM is being a prick (already covered this, shoddy DM is DM fault not games). Hydras are an explicit special case. So are Kraken. They are written the way they are BECAUSE the normal combat system doesn't handle hit location. If anything hydras make my case because the special rules for hydras wouldn't need to exist otherwise. Could you actually explain that for me. I fail to see how they do anything but hurt your case. Then again, you seem unwilling to actually explain anything. They have special rules yes. Those rules mean that sunder can work on living flesh. You stated it couldn't or was meaningless. USUALLY does not equal NEVER, just as it doesn't equal ALWAYS. The system has hit location rules already in it, they arn't good ones but they are there. It doesn't use them for normal attacks because HP is abstract and they are pointless for it. Why would a chain shirt protect your legs (it does though in the game). Same-same. No it protects your character. Normal attacks don't use hit location rules, remember. AC armor bonuses assume that you are trying to hit the unprotected part of your enemy (hence the larger bonus for more coverage armor wise). The chain shirt doesn't protect you legs, it makes them a focus, as are your arms, neck, ect. That just isn't true. Explain please. It is because you are using a mechanic that OOC you know is broken for a tactic that IC is iffy at best. Thus you are basing your decision to attack (always) on OOC knowledge. If the rule were fixed, my objections would vanish. So your argument is that "If you metagame you're metagaming, and everyone always metagames rather than roleplaying." ? That's not true at all. The game is a roleplaying game. The mechanics SHOULD have no impact on what your character does. Your character, his motivations, his knowledge, his personality, ect. should be why you choose to do something. Why doesn't everyone play Druid 20, Pun Pun, or various other overpowered builds? Some people enjoy actually playing a roleplaying game, you can't assume everyone metagames just because they follow the rules. Sure he does. If the BBEG hires a bunch of goons to destroy as much gear as possible via sunder than he is certainly metagaming (because the DM has knowledge of the mechanical rules that the BBEG doesn't and is using it). That isn't using the mechanics IC, that is using knowledge of the mechanics IC, and most likely OOC knowledge of the parties gear IC as well. Does the NPC pick up a D20 in game, roll it, and yell at Thorag "Ha Ha, I sundered you precious magic amulet of natural armor, ha ah." ? Only if shoddy DMing is going on. Again, the mechanics and the game are not the same thing. Doing something in mechanics is completely different from doing something in character. If the character would do it, the mechanics do not matter. Metagaming is only an issue here if the player is using the mechanics as a reason for the character to do something. This can be the case, but is not always. It's flavor text. This issue was addressed in the DMG2 in fact. An RP restriction is not a restriction....because you can not control how each group will interact with the RP restriction (if at all) and how each group will interact with it. So what you're saying is, if the DM doesn't enforce the restriction, it's not a restriction, therefore it's never a restriction. [Sarcasm] I see absolutely nothing wrong with that reasoning at all. Nope, definately perfect.[/end sarcasm] You've basically claimed that everyone who reads the rules must be a metagamer if the character ever does something that is covered under the rules but easier than you (or any player at the table, I'll give you that) believes they should be. To quote you. Please. You know better than that. Intentions do matter and knowledge does matter especially when it comes to metagaming. Intentions and knowledge matter completely here, but it's the opposite of what you were trying to say. The intentions that should be looked at are those of the character, likewise the knowledge should be that of the character. Not, the players in either case. Now if a player builds pun pun and it's all roleplayed in character with the character having the motivation and knowledge to pull it off, is he metagaming? NO! He may be power gaming. He may just be trying to **** off the DM. It is not however metagaming by the definition of metagaming. |
| GawainBS07-16-07, 03:19 PM | Why do people who defend sunder as a valid, non metagaming, regularly recurring DM tactic refuse to acknowledge that gold as much as XP determines the effective party level? Our DM had such a period and it was annoying. Sundering once, fine, at low levels. Sundering a 200000gp weapon is crippling a character. He even disarmed a spell component pouch from a flying kobold once with a Large creature. Plain ridiculous. Best evidence to illustrate his metagaming: he never uses trip, since we can recover from it with a free action. Someone here suggested replacing the PC's broken or lost equipment by the end of the adventure. That's a fine balance, as long as it's a one-time event. For the OP: a dwarvencraft adamantium item is hard to sunder. Otherwise, go for something made of Auraneum. |
| Ace_of_time07-16-07, 03:28 PM | How do you recover from a trip as a free action? |
| GawainBS07-16-07, 03:38 PM | There's at least one skill trick for it in Complete Scoundrel. Also, IIRC, a DC 35 Tumble check allows "kip-up": stand from prone as free action with AoO. |
| Polaris07-16-07, 03:45 PM | How do you recover from a trip as a free action? Also the Prone Attack feat lets you kip-up as a free action (during an attack) and completely negates the combat penalties for being prone. Lots of ways to recover from trip with a free action. -Polaris |
| rironin07-16-07, 03:48 PM | How do you recover from a trip as a free action?The boots of agile leaping from the Magic Item Compendium also allow you to stand up from prone as a free action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, if you have at least 5 ranks in Balance. |
| J_Vhad07-16-07, 03:51 PM | I havn't seen that said or implied yet. A good DM will keep his party at the appropriate wealth level despite the tactics he uses in combat. Why? Because it's the suggested way to play according to the game. So far, it seems that those accusing it of only being metagaming and unfair insist that all DMs are metagamers and trying to hose the players all the time. Sundering a 200,000 gp weapon is crippling to a character for a while if the game is played right. Then again, it should be. So he looses the sword, any intelligent character is going to have a backup weapon of some kind and if it gets toasted too, then it's a good time to use FEAR tactics (**** Everything And Run). Most of the arguments against using sundering "It destroys loot", "It nerfs the players", "I'ts broken", "It isn't fun." Are metagaming in themselves. A DM never has to include an NPC in the game that sunders, but it isn't automatically a bad or metagaming thing. |
| GawainBS07-16-07, 04:00 PM | Not automaticly, but you can't deny it's way to easy to sunder very expensive stuff. You would almost think the DM wants to see his players naked with all that sundering we encountered. ;) Serously, it's the same with Grapple & Disarm: once or twice it's fun, because you have to adapt. About the 4th or 5th time, you feel being cheated and you do *get* the point that every player group is at the DM's mercy. |
| Ace_of_time07-16-07, 04:15 PM | To the point that is be discussed now. Even if the DM came up to you and talked about it you would still lose the item. I'm sorry I don't see how the cost makes much of a difference. Why waste a feat or item slot on something like that. I mean I could understand something like quick draw but if you getting alot of use out of those other feats you may have a bigger problem on your hands. |
| JTalbain07-16-07, 05:39 PM | I definitely agree that any logically applying defense should apply to the item's AC. Deflection bonuses are supposed to "make attacks veer off target", magical armor bonuses create "an invisible field of force around the characters body", Insight bonuses give you a precognitive ability to dodge attacks, and Dexterity and Dodge bonuses are so interrelated that whenever on is denied so is the other. On top of that, amulets, rings, gloves, belts, etc. may all be hidden by armor and I would personally rule that any item which covers a significant portion of the body and is not merely wrapped around and fastened (like a belt) would be unsunderable by mere logical rules. For instance, if you allow someone to sunder a characters Boots of Teleportation, Helm of Telepathy, or Bracers of Armor, why exactly is it that you can't sunder an armor composed of the same items? One of the things that I think Polaris hasn't been able to communicate is why exactly the DM is metagaming by using the rule. In most cases anything the DM can do the PC's can do as well with the combat strategies and game mechanics. However, the game mechanics are specifically designed with the PCs having to face multiple combats per day and living to tell the tale, whereas most monsters are expected to fight once and die. As such, the DM will win ANY war of attrition, because any forces he throws at the party will have a fresh compilation of resources. The main problem with the mechanic is that while Sunder is a valid tactic, monsters are expected to replenish the PC's inventory with the treasure they carry. Bad guys who are much lower level than the party can have the ability to target and relatively easily break extremely valuable items that the players possess, and give crap items in return. This violates the purpose behind CR of encounters. The reason why enemies who are extremely low level do not give any experience to the party is because they do not effectively drain the resources of the party. A group of level 5 rogues who ambush a level 20 party will give absoultely no experience and have no loot the PC's will be interested in. They should not give experience, because they are no challenge for the party to defeat. The Barbarian can kill them all without getting hit or raging, the Fighter can kill them all in a single Whirlwind Attack given proper placement, etc. In fact, the Rogues probably have almost no chance of even hitting the lowest AC member of the party. But if they attack their items, they can cause hundreds of thousands of gold on a suicidal tactic. It really is the equivalent of suicide bombing. Which brings us to Polaris' point. The way powerlevels are supposed to work in D&D is supposed to be a balancing factor to avoid abuse; you get almost no rewards for encounters that are far below your power level, and you have almost no threat from them either. In the game world, if the Bad Guy has ANY knowledge of the powerlevel of the PC's he shouldn't be hiring low level lackeys to attack them in the expectation that they'll actually do any damage. Logic would dictate this, and so do the intention of the rules as stated in the CR system. (And to head off the argument at the pass, skill is something that can be measured by reputation, observation, and price of services, so yes, the Bad Guy probably knows exactly the quality he's hiring.) However, if the bad guy is sending very low-level thugs into direct confrontation with the PC's, he by all rights SHOULD know that it's a worthless endeavor. However, as the rules stand now, the Bad Guy can go "Wait a minute! I can send them to just destroy as many of the PCs items as possible!" Using this logic, specifically because it involves using a blatant exploit of the rules of D&D in a manner to allow someone who is absolutely not a challenge to the party (and will give no significant reward if defeated) to significantly reduce the party resources (something only things of an appropriate challenge rating are supposed to do) it is both metagaming and a broken mechanic. It would be fairly easy to remedy this problem by merely introducing a spell or two that repair magic items and restore their magical abilities. A fifth level spell with an xp cost of 500 + whatever xp would have been required to repair the item with the appropriate item creation feat would do nicely. However, as one of the many fallacies circulating these boards states "If you can houserule a mechanic to make it not broken, it doesn't make the mechanic not broken." |
| Polaris07-16-07, 08:03 PM | JTailban, Thank you for illustrating the point I was trying to make far better than I have been able to do. In fact that is exactly the point. The experience of NPCs/Monsters and PCs is necessarily asymmetric and that's what makes the use of item sundering both broken and metagaming for exactly the reasons you listed. -Polaris |
| PlagueKnight07-16-07, 10:35 PM | wow. J_Vhad, the simple fact that you have stood there and tried to explain your viewpoint to Polaris clearly and concisely this entire time amazes me. Truly, you are that neutral-good cleric of Pelor that the party just happens upon while he's being attacked by something weak yet numerous (not calling anyone on the board weak or numerous). Polaris, I have read all that you have typed, and I have laughed long and hard at how you seem to never really say anything new. I am not entirely sure whether you are really stubborn, or just trolling pool Vhad, but I think you're just yanking his chain... Vhad said that characters that do stuff that doesn't make any sense for them to do in character is metagaming. Polaris said that spellcasters and sundering are both broken as shi*. I think Vhad is right. Now I would like to elaborate as to why with a simple question: Polaris, if you were fighting an enemy party with rings that granted mid-range damage-resistance, and an enemy cleric sitting in the back with a greater wand of heal, mass, what would you do? keep hitting the fighter with 150+ HP in the hopes of killing him in one round of combat, or walk over and beat the cleric over the head with the two broken halves of his wand of recently-sundered oak? It makes sense entirely, and is completely in character, to take away the healer's ability to slow down your killing spree here. You cannot beat the party so long as the cleric can restore everyone back to full health every round. You cannot down the cleric in one pass due to fighter intervention and the whole healing issue. It is completely logical for any character to want to break the wand. Now, what would invoke less attacks of opportunity: Dropping your weapon, disarming the cleric, and then making a strength check to snap the wand, or sundering it? What would you do in one smooth motion that would let you keep your weapon handy and possibly allow for another attack on the now-unarmed cleric? It is a LOT easier to break his ******* weapon, or his amulet that is infused with the essences of a healing-domain god, or his magical hat of bright lights and funny noises. Sundering is GOOD. Your lack of explanations and the repeated use of the words "i don't have to explain myself to you" make me sad. If you just want to monologue, go sit in front of a mirror. If you merely want to irritate people by refusing to hear logic, go sit in public and scream profanities until someone sunders your cloth armor and leaves a shovel hanging out of your torso. If you want to talk and listen, stay and please, please explain why you think playing regularly in character is metagaming. |
| Polaris07-16-07, 10:44 PM | Plagueknight, Why don't you read JTalbain's post again if you find my points unconvincing. The problem with Sunder Item is that it's too good and specifically it's too good for NPCs. No matter how you slice it, the playing field for the DM (and his NPCs) and the PCs is necessarily asymmetic, and one of the controlling assumptions of DnD is that your gear is as much as part of you as your arms and legs. That's why Sunder is a broken mechanic and why the use of it by the DM is metagaming.....because the DM is taking advantage of a broken rule to make an encounter take up party resources without just reward (because the CR of the encounter would normally be too low). That's what makes this metagaming...and individual cases don't matter much. If you can't see that, then too damn bad. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-17-07, 11:52 AM | His post did nothing to support you points. I merely tried to tie mechanics to IC knowledge as you already have. Everything is still the same, the entire premise of his post is that every DM must be metagaming if they make an NPC that IC desires to hurt the party. Note, I didn't say challenge the party, I didn't say kill the party, I said HURT the party. This is not the case. It can be, but just because something can be metagaming does not mean it always is. Neither of you have supported the claim that "Broken=metagaming" and Polaris, you just say everything is irrelevant rather than backing any claims up. I can say pink elehpants shop on the sunday at the superbowl, but just claiming it doesn't prove my point. I'd have to catch the filthy things on tape to prove it (you'd be suprised at how fast those buggers are too). Sundering does not USE party resources. It takes them away. It is no different than having the party captured and held in prison (a classic cliche plotline that has been done thousands of times i'd like to add.). Is it metagaming for a jailor to take all of a PCs gear when locking him up in prison? Is that "OMFG brokens must be metagaming?" No. To not do it because it's supposedly broken, would be metagaming. Is running an adventure in a non-magic zone metagaming? What about a casting of Mage's Disjunciton? If the DM is running the game as the books suggest, the heroes will get those items back. There resources will renew just like spells per day do. No where in the books does it mention that vastly lower level characters shouldn't be able to affect players resources. Just that it shouldn't be enough to warrant experience. Is it broken for a Level 8 aristocrat king to have the Lv.20 PCs imprissoned and stripped of their gear? Is it broken for a Level 5 Expert craftsman to charge extra for all those filthy humans when they're buying his wares even though they are level 19? The case still stands that metagaming must be using OOC knowledge to come to a conclusion IC. If you come to you IC conclusion with only IC knowlege then you are not metagaming. It doesn't matter what the mechanics work like, all that matters is how you came to you conlcusion IG. If fighters always hit on any number over five, would it be metagaming for them to attack enemies that are attacking them? |
| GawainBS07-17-07, 11:57 AM | If the DM is running the game as the books suggest, the heroes will get those items back. There resources will renew just like spells per day do. And that's the point where you agree with Polaris. As the OP stated, and no doubt many of us have experienced, the DM isn't running the game as the books suggest, but just using sunder over and over again to hurt the PC's repeatedly, over a looong time, because it's so easy to sunder. Not because his monsters would do that IC, not because it has a strategic advantage for anybody related to the sunderers, but simply to kick the PCs in the family jewels, so to speak. IF, and I think Polaris will agree to this, the DM ensures PCs keep on the Wealth ~ Level table, then there's no problem. |
| J_Vhad07-17-07, 12:17 PM | Polaris hasn't agreed with that. In fact he's argued exactly the opposite, that is' broken because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules, which is like arguing that combat is broken because the DM doesn't have to ever mark off the damage to the enemies hit points, or even give them hit points for that matter. The problem is, the OP never said why his DM was doing it. We havn't even heard the OPs side of the story just a condensed, I'm getting sundered help, phrase. People have been assuming that must be the case. Yes the DM can sunder everything in sight. He can do that without metagaming, just as he can throw a Colossal red dragon at a party of level one adventurers without metagaming (mmmmmmmmmmm! snackable.). If the DM follows the books though, then he won't unless the party has fun in those situations. |
| Polaris07-17-07, 01:33 PM | His post did nothing to support you points. I merely tried to tie mechanics to IC knowledge as you already have. Yes it does. Read the post again. Everything is still the same, the entire premise of his post is that every DM must be metagaming if they make an NPC that IC desires to hurt the party. Note, I didn't say challenge the party, I didn't say kill the party, I said HURT the party. False. What IS metagaming is when the NPC uses OOC rules knowledge to hurt the party. Sundering hurts the party because the situation that the PCs face with multiple encounters after which resources must be refreshed and the DM's NPCs (who start with fresh resources every time) is necessarily assymetric. This is not the case. It can be, but just because something can be metagaming does not mean it always is. In this case, it clearly seems to be, and frankly in the case of the DM sundering items I've never seen a case where it ultimately wasn't. It's easy to claim that no metagaming is going on, but when push comes to shove those claims always turn out to be false (and again because PCs and NPCs have assymmetric expectations). Neither of you have supported the claim that "Broken=metagaming" and Polaris, you just say everything is irrelevant rather than backing any claims up. I can say pink elehpants shop on the sunday at the superbowl, but just claiming it doesn't prove my point. I'd have to catch the filthy things on tape to prove it (you'd be suprised at how fast those buggers are too). That's good because I never said broken equals metagaming. What I AM saying is that if the DM exploits a rule he knows to be broken, then he is metagaming. It's easy to do, but that doesn't change the fact of it. Sundering does not USE party resources. It takes them away. It is no different than having the party captured and held in prison (a classic cliche plotline that has been done thousands of times i'd like to add.). Is it metagaming for a jailor to take all of a PCs gear when locking him up in prison? Does the party have less resources after the enounter than before? Check. Therefore, de facto sundering forces the party to use (or lose if you prefer) party resources far out of line with their CR. Is that "OMFG brokens must be metagaming?" No. To not do it because it's supposedly broken, would be metagaming. No. Not allowing it would be sensible. There is already precedent given that you aren't allowed to sunder armor....and don't you think it's a bit passing strange that you can sunder magic boots....but can't sunder the boots that come with platemail? Nah...(sarc) because the sunder rules are perfect and nobody would ever think do do that (end sarc) Is running an adventure in a non-magic zone metagaming? What about a casting of Mage's Disjunciton? Yes to both especially to MDJ. In fact the objections to MDJ are precisely the same against Sunder only more so. If the DM is running the game as the books suggest, the heroes will get those items back. There resources will renew just like spells per day do. Just because you can house-rule it, doesn't mean the rule isn't broken. No where in the books does it mention that vastly lower level characters shouldn't be able to affect players resources. Just that it shouldn't be enough to warrant experience. Yes it does, albeit implicitly. If an encounter does not give experience, then the party should be able to go through as many as desired with no appreciable lack of the ability to handle higher CR encountes. That's WHY they aren't worth experience. Sundering items ruins this. Is it broken for a Level 8 aristocrat king to have the Lv.20 PCs imprissoned and stripped of their gear? It can be. Certainly the PCs deserve a chance to avoid it. Otherwise it's heavy-handed DMing (and the desire for a heavy hand does lead to DM metagaming). You also forget that this king may have Epic level guards which changes things a bit doncha think? Is it broken for a Level 5 Expert craftsman to charge extra for all those filthy humans when they're buying his wares even though they are level 19? Huh? Non-sequitor. The case still stands that metagaming must be using OOC knowledge to come to a conclusion IC. If you come to you IC conclusion with only IC knowlege then you are not metagaming. It doesn't matter what the mechanics work like, all that matters is how you came to you conlcusion IG. But that isn't the case with sundering in the long term. If the DM is using sunder against the party no matter what the individual justification is then the DM is metagaming for the reasons that JTalbain already mentioned. We ignore the individual justification because the DM can 'cook' the encounter to justify each sunder use for each encounter. That doesn't mean the DM isn't metagaming (because he is). If fighters always hit on any number over five, would it be metagaming for them to attack enemies that are attacking them? Again another non-sequitor. GawainBS, If the DM were always careful to replenish what was lost and make sure that the party was at the suggested wealth level, then I wouldn't have my objections. The problem is that the DM when using sunder is under no such requirement, and 99.999% of the time (all cases I'VE ever seen and from the sounds of it most others here as well), the DM doesn't bother. He just kicks the party with Sunder and chuckles behind his dice-protecter (and then wonders why the players get upset). -Polaris |
| rironin07-17-07, 01:37 PM | And that's the point where you agree with Polaris. As the OP stated, and no doubt many of us have experienced, the DM isn't running the game as the books suggest, but just using sunder over and over again to hurt the PC's repeatedly, over a looong time, because it's so easy to sunder. Not because his monsters would do that IC, not because it has a strategic advantage for anybody related to the sunderers, but simply to kick the PCs in the family jewels, so to speak. IF, and I think Polaris will agree to this, the DM ensures PCs keep on the Wealth ~ Level table, then there's no problem.Depending on the "sunder rate," average wealth per encounter might not be enough to keep PCs at their recommended wealth levels. Supposedly, a DM going "by the book" wouldn't have to worry about messing with the treasure he gives PCs and could just give average wealth by encounter, and it would all work out okay, including costs for consumable items, raising, and replacing sundered gear. In my experience, this is never the case - I always keep tabs on the wealth of my PCs and always find myself customizing the treasures I give to make sure things are on an even keel. Polaris, one could say that since the average treasure per encounter delivers a set amount of treasure to PCs, and since that amount of treasure is intended to provide them with the appropriate wealth by level, that the books are implicitly telling DMs to keep the sunder rate low. I agree with you that the rules are wonky. In my games, I don't think it's ever going to come up unless someone's trying to hit that potion out of the baddy's hand or shatter the crystal of ultimate doomsdayedness. And when that happens, I'll probably modify the rules somehow to make it an appropriately difficult task. Outside of that, I doubt any of my NPCs will sunder non-weapon gear or have their non-weapon gear sundered, unless it's some weird monster that specifically seeks to do such things.Is running an adventure in a non-magic zone metagaming? What about a casting of Mage's Disjunciton?Yes to both especially to MDJ. In fact the objections to MDJ are precisely the same against Sunder only more so.Maybe I don't see the true meaning of "metagaming" here. Or why the above are so horrid. I would think that a non-magic encounter (or even adventure) could be a ton of fun, especially for experienced players - after so many vanilla encounters they crave something fresh. The DM would have to think long and hard to take all the changes and limitations into account and to keep things balanced, to be sure. But it could be awesome, for everyone at the table. As for MDJ, it's a lot like sundering, as you say; as a DM I choose to pretend that such tactics are rare and unusual, since I don't feel like drastically increasing treasure rewards to constantly replace lost gear. |
| GawainBS07-17-07, 01:52 PM | GawainBS, If the DM were always careful to replenish what was lost and make sure that the party was at the suggested wealth level, then I wouldn't have my objections. The problem is that the DM when using sunder is under no such requirement, and 99.999% of the time (all cases I'VE ever seen and from the sounds of it most others here as well), the DM doesn't bother. He just kicks the party with Sunder and chuckles behind his dice-protecter (and then wonders why the players get upset). -Polaris That's what I was trying to say. Sunder, as an option, offers possibilities and tactics, just like all the other options do. Just don't abuse it as a DM. You can protect yourself from a lvl 17 wizard with Wish because you're the DM. Players are at your mercy, so they have to swallow what comes at them. |
| J_Vhad07-17-07, 02:03 PM | The rules give an average wealth level with every implication that heroes are supposed to remain around that level or grow to the next level as the level continues on. A DM that doesn't follow along with that implication is not different than a DM that doesn't follow along with the implications that CRs should be in the parties' range to affect the enemies. Shoddy DMing does not constitute proof for a mechanic being broken. Prove that it isn't shoddy DMing or prove that shoddy dming does constitute proof for a broken mechanic and that argument will have some merit, but until then it's as pointless as that sundered broadsword. Maybe I don't see the true meaning of "metagaming" Apparently that is my problem as well, because obviously the god of might Malhak decided in the third age of the sun to make the desert of Famel immune to the powers of his nemesis Nashal, God of magic, just because the PCs were going to fight a battle in his center temple of the desert. From what I can tell they are implying all DMs must be metagaming all the time whenever possible. In which case, Sundering is no more broken or metagaming than any other tactic the DM uses. I, however, have always been under the impression that metagaming is using knowledge your character does not have to determine his/her actions. I fail to see how an orc cleaving through the clerics wand, or smashing the fighters potion belt afters he's drank three of the things, or for that matter sundering the ancient talisman of Kurash the heathens pulled from the sacred altar (because it falling into heathen hands is worse than losing it) is metagaming automatically. Now I can see how they could be metagaming, as could pretty much everything in the game. But they are not automatically, because there are times when a character can draw on his knowledge to come to the conclusions. A good DM will always play his NPCs with only their IC knowledge and run them by that motivation. If the DM is doing otherwise, it is shoddy DMing. Not a fault of the system. |
| Polaris07-17-07, 02:07 PM | That's what I was trying to say. Sunder, as an option, offers possibilities and tactics, just like all the other options do. Just don't abuse it as a DM. You can protect yourself from a lvl 17 wizard with Wish because you're the DM. Players are at your mercy, so they have to swallow what comes at them. The problem is that Sunder Item (not sunder in general) is too good an option and is too much of an equalizer between low CR NPCs and high level PCs. That's not a good thing. To illustrate my point, imagine a 20th level warrior type. He has +5 Mithril Plate, +5 Large Shield, +5 Adamantine blade, +5 ring of protect, and +5 amulet of natural armor, and a cloak of displacement (50% miss chance). Assume he has a 16 Dex and a 30 strength (both after items). His base AC is 10+3 (dex)+13 (armor)+7 (shield)+5 (ring)+5 (amulet) for a total of 43. Now imagine him being attacked by a 10th level NPC orc (10 level of barbarian). The 10th level orc will likely have a strength of 24 or so, call it a +2 Axe (adamantine) and the rest of the gear is trivial for this example. The Orc will have 10 (bab)+7(strength)+2 (axe)+1(WFoc) or +20 to hit. This means the orc won't be able to hit the 20th level fighter except on a natural 20. So far so good. This is how it should be. In a straight up fight, the 20th level fighter will win probably without getting a scratch. Now....assume that the Orc wants to sunder the helm of telepathy. The AC of the helm is just 10+3(fighter's dex)+2 (size mod) or 15. The Orc will hit that on any roll except a natural one and given it's an Adamantine Great-Axe with a 24 strength will always sunder the helm. Thus an Orc who is 10 levels less, has done more damage than any two normal encounters should and that is why the sunder item rules are broken and that is why the DM that takes advantage of it is metagaming. It's a two pronged problem. The Sunder Item rules are busted (note in the same example, the Orc would find it nearly impossible to sunder the fighter's weapon or shield) and it's too much of a tempation for the DM to take advantage. -Polaris |
| GawainBS07-17-07, 02:08 PM | I think we can at least agree that we were all confronted by shoddy DM'ing then? Also, you have to admit that destroying a belt, ring, etc... is way too easy, right? I'm not bringing up how feasible it would be, or how likely, or some such. Just... managing to make such a difficult attack against, probably, a very able combatant, should be something harder than not rolling a 1. Mechanicly, it's too easy for too great a benefit for the sunderer/ too great a drawback for the victim. |
| J_Vhad07-17-07, 02:28 PM | It's a two pronged problem. The Sunder Item rules are busted (note in the same example, the Orc would find it nearly impossible to sunder the fighter's weapon or shield) and it's too much of a tempation for the DM to take advantage. You are still using Shoddy DMing for you proof. Why did the barb sunder the helm? Did he magically know what it was? Was he told what it was by the wizard buddy? Why should it be harder to hit? Is your full-plate going to protect your helm? Natural armor? Yes it does. Read the post again. Then explain what it supported? It was just a more effectively written grouping of what you've been saying this whole time. It is possible to still play IC despite knowing the rules. Knowing the rules doesn't automatically smite you into becoming a munchkin, powergamer, metagamer, ect. You can roleplay perfectly fine after reading through and memorizing the rulebook. |
| Polaris07-17-07, 02:39 PM | You are still using Shoddy DMing for you proof. Why did the barb sunder the helm? Did he magically know what it was? Was he told what it was by the wizard buddy? The Helm of Telepathy was only an example. I could have had the Orc go after the cloak of displacement (which would be even easier to hit) or the human warrior type might have been wearing a helm of brilliance (which is easy to tell is special). Doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that an NPC ten levels less than the fighter can do so much item damage, that the 20th level fighter is better off dead. Edit: Just because the DM can houserule it, does NOT mean the rule isn't broken. It's the Oberani fallacy and you are falling for it. In short, you can't use the excuse, "but that's shoddy DMing" to excuse a rule that is clearly broken (and I provided clean numbers to show it explicitly). Why should it be harder to hit? Is your full-plate going to protect your helm? Natural armor? In DnD? Absolutely because hit locations don't work in DnD. Your platemail does protect your head...therefor it should protect your magical helm. Hell, you can not sunder a non-magical helm (platemail comes with a nonmagical helm and you can not sunder armor) therefor you shouldn't be able to sunder the magical helm. Certainly it shouldn't be easier than a touch attack....but it is. Then explain what it supported? It was just a more effectively written grouping of what you've been saying this whole time. The sunder item rules as written destroy/use PC gear in a way and rate that is completely out of line with the wealth per level guidelines. A DM that takes advantage of this over multiple encounters IS METAGAMING no matter how the individual encounters are cooked to make this seem reasonable. It is possible to still play IC despite knowing the rules. Knowing the rules doesn't automatically smite you into becoming a munchkin, powergamer, metagamer, ect. You can roleplay perfectly fine after reading through and memorizing the rulebook. No, but exploiting a broken rule as a DM to keep the party artificially weak certainly is even if you try to hide it. The key is not whether or not sunder item makes sense in each encounter. You have to look at the big picture...and you're not. You never did answer my question earlier: Sunder is your favorite tactic as a GM, isn't it? -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-17-07, 03:08 PM | The Helm of Telepathy was only an example. I could have had the Orc go after the cloak of displacement (which would be even easier to hit) or the human warrior type might have been wearing a helm of brilliance (which is easy to tell is special). Doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that an NPC ten levels less than the fighter can do so much item damage, that the 20th level fighter is better off dead. You ignored the bolded part of your quote so here I'll put if for you again. and it's too much of a tempation for the DM to take advantage. If the DM is being tempted into metagaming, he's being a Shoddy DM. You can't wriggle out of that. Not all DM's metagame. Not all DM's are tempted to metagame. Good DM's tell a story, they don't metagame and play vs. the players. Read the DMG. It's a Good DM's friend. Edit: Just because the DM can houserule it, does NOT mean the rule isn't broken. It's the Oberani fallacy and you are falling for it. In short, you can't use the excuse, "but that's shoddy DMing" to excuse a rule that is clearly broken (and I provided clean numbers to show it explicitly). Just because the DM houserules it doesn't mean the rule was broken in the first place either. You still havn't proved that the rule is broken without metagaming (which the game assumes is how you will play). You didn't provide clear numbers to show it was broken at all. You provided the numbers for how it works. Why would that be broken? Why should the item be harder to hit? Why is it too powerful? Money? Please, a DM that follows the DMG will keep his group equiped like it suggests. That seems to be your one big argument. In DnD? Absolutely because hit locations don't work in DnD. Your platemail does protect your head...therefor it should protect your magical helm. Hell, you can not sunder a non-magical helm (platemail comes with a nonmagical helm and you can not sunder armor) therefor you shouldn't be able to sunder the magical helm. You say this but havn't proven it. There is a slot system. You cannot sunder the armor which I believe falls in the armor slot. You can sunder a helm, which coincedently enough falls in the helm slot. See, different locations. You can put you hands over your eyes and scream "I don't see it it's no there," but it still is. Nothing suggests that the helm would go under the normal helm for platemail, or that you could even wear both at once. Certainly it shouldn't be easier than a touch attack....but it is. Stating an opinion without support does nothing for your point. Why should it be easier? Why should deflection bonuses, insight bonuses, ect. apply to the item? The sunder item rules as written destroy/use PC gear in a way and rate that is completely out of line with the wealth per level guidelines. A DM that takes advantage of this over multiple encounters IS METAGAMING no matter how the individual encounters are cooked to make this seem reasonable. NO it is not automatically metagaming. In most cases it will be along with a bad case of the shoddy DM, but there are times it's perfectly reasonable and logical. Is it fun? Probably not. Is it metagaming? Not automatically. No, but exploiting a broken rule as a DM to keep the party artificially weak certainly is even if you try to hide it. The key is not whether or not sunder item makes sense in each encounter. You have to look at the big picture...and you're not. Not it's not metagaming. Exploiting the system does make you a shoddy DM, especially if you are playing vs. the players. It doesn't make it metagaming though. The story is seperate from the mechanics. Just because the DM knows the rules and makes the encounters doesn't mean the NPCs in the encounters don't have reasons to do what they do in the encounters. I am looking at the big picture. Try reading the thread instead of skimming it and going "Darn he didnt' agree, I'll state my point with no proof again, it must work this time." I've admitted, excessive sundering isn't usually fun (the exception is low magic campaigns where it really doesn't matter). I've admitted excessive sundering can be DM metagaming. I've admitted excessive sundering can be shoddy DMing. I have not, nor will I, ever say that it is always metagaming and shoddy DMing, because that is not true. The key to Good DMing is making your game fun for the players, and playing by the same rules they do. Now, I base all my arguments strictly on the core rules and their emphasis. This means to be a good DM you don't metagame, you make the game fun, and you keep your group on their wealth guidelines while providing appropriate challenges. Nothing in that prevents sundering. Nothing prevents a character from deciding to break Sir Knighticus's potion belt after he's healed himself with them for times. Note: I said CHARACTER deciding. Not player, 2 different things. It's a reasonable IC conclusion and thus not metagaming. You problem seems to be with the phrase metagaming. I don't think you really know what it means and what you are arguing. You never did answer my question earlier: Sunder is your favorite tactic as a GM, isn't it? Trying counting how many of mine you havn't answered. I told you, the question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. It has nothing to do with sunderings mechanics in the game or metagaming. Everything you've said is irrelevant deals directly with those issues. So why am I going to go off topic and discus your irrelevant questions when you won't discuss my relevant questions? I've never had a player complain about my DMing so I'll let you draw your own conclusions. |
| Kraze07-17-07, 03:32 PM | Honestly, it is pretty broken when you go into components and such. Sundering Weapons not so much. Sunder is great for capture tactics and such. To sunder components, holy symbols, and such? Wouldn't be much different than sundering armor. Which IIRC, isn't an option. I just don't allow it. While the mechanic isn't broken, Sunder can be a maddening ability to keep using on your players and requires responsible use. If it's upsetting than you should use a house rule like I have. If you want to take away a characters weapon I recommend using disarm more, sometimes the knowledge that they can get it back makes it even better. The rule as written though is insanely strong. Best way to overcome that...play a monk. :) |
| Polaris07-18-07, 12:35 AM | Guys, Why is the DM use of Sunder Item Metagaming? 1. The DM does not intend to hose the party, and is using this reasonably (note that I have never seen that happen, but just suppose for sake of argument). In such a case (as Vhad admitted), the DM should make up for the loss of treasure with extra found treasure. That, however, is metagaming because the DM is using OOC knowledge and OOC rules knowledge to make up for a rule that makes it too easy to break items. Arguably it's good metagaming, but it's still metagaming. 2. The DM does intend to hose the party and tailors each encounter to 'justify' the use of sunder in each case (trivially easy to do btw). In that case the PCs do NOT have the necesarry wealth needed to meet challenges of their CR and worse encounters that shouldn't drain party resources at all have an unreasonable impact on party strength (and the party gets nothing for these encounters). As JTalbain already explained, this too is metagaming because in the long term, the DM is exploiting a rule he knows is broken using OOC knowledge and calculation (since presumably each NPC doesn't talk to each other and plans on Sundering the party's items). Either way, the DM is metagaming. If the rule for sundering items were sensible (and at least the rules for sundering weapons and shields approaches being sensible), then this wouldn't be an issue since Sunder wouldn't work well enough to noticably impact the party's wealth progression. Right now, that's not the case. Thus this is a case where a broken mechanic if used by the DM pretty much always causes the DM to metagame whether he intends to or not. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-18-07, 06:19 AM | Thus, if a DM creates an encounter in a "death magic zone" to make the wizard stay apart for an encounter the DM is metagaming Everytime the DM creates an encounter that is "created on the party" for a "plot reason" he's metagaming Come on! The DM is perfectly entitled to create encounter to suit the party in a way or another. He's perfectly entitled to create an encounter that is based on the character powers, to make them use their powers and be happy to have chosen those powers. The DMs MUST do it every now and then. The DMs is also entitled to create an encounter using the party weakness to certain "situation" to make the encounter more dangerous and fun. I cannot accept that the DM cannot create an encounter because... well I really didn't understand why! No belivable reason are here. If I think that "sundering the fighter's wonderfull two handed sword" is going to create the right dramatic feelings in the game, I will create a such encounter... and I will probably will reward the party with an equal valued two handed sword later, or in another way to make the fighter happy again! My goal is the fun of all, thus there's no "metagame" issue to taken into consideration. The only issue is: "ase my players going to have fun if I use such a tactic?" I've sundered sometimes weapon/items to my player's characters, and it was always an addictive moment. They were rewarded and now they still talk about that session. The only important things is that "sundering" must be a straordinary event, instead of an ordinary one |
| J_Vhad07-18-07, 08:32 AM | That, however, is metagaming because the DM is using OOC knowledge and OOC rules knowledge to make up for a rule that makes it too easy to break items. Arguably it's good metagaming, but it's still metagaming. No, it does not have to be metagaming at all. You still seem to have a problem with the concept of metagaming. Metagaming is using OOC knowledge IC. That's it. Using OOC knowledge to design a treasure chest is not metagaming. Show me how it has to be. By your argument EVERYTHING is metagaming so metagaming can't be used as an excuse for sundering to be bad. |
| GawainBS07-18-07, 11:52 AM | Thus, if a DM creates an encounter in a "death magic zone" to make the wizard stay apart for an encounter the DM is metagaming Everytime the DM creates an encounter that is "created on the party" for a "plot reason" he's metagaming Come on! The DM is perfectly entitled to create encounter to suit the party in a way or another. He's perfectly entitled to create an encounter that is based on the character powers, to make them use their powers and be happy to have chosen those powers. The DMs MUST do it every now and then. The DMs is also entitled to create an encounter using the party weakness to certain "situation" to make the encounter more dangerous and fun. I cannot accept that the DM cannot create an encounter because... well I really didn't understand why! No belivable reason are here. If I think that "sundering the fighter's wonderfull two handed sword" is going to create the right dramatic feelings in the game, I will create a such encounter... and I will probably will reward the party with an equal valued two handed sword later, or in another way to make the fighter happy again! My goal is the fun of all, thus there's no "metagame" issue to taken into consideration. The only issue is: "ase my players going to have fun if I use such a tactic?" I've sundered sometimes weapon/items to my player's characters, and it was always an addictive moment. They were rewarded and now they still talk about that session. The only important things is that "sundering" must be a straordinary event, instead of an ordinary one I think nobody has a problem with a DM sundering if he ensures the party stays on it wealth level. Also, the sundering rules make it too easy to deprive the party of too great a bunch of resources. It simply is. This is another reason why the DM should ensure the above. |
| Polaris07-18-07, 12:51 PM | Thus, if a DM creates an encounter in a "death magic zone" to make the wizard stay apart for an encounter the DM is metagaming Everytime the DM creates an encounter that is "created on the party" for a "plot reason" he's metagaming That's right. The DM is using OOC knowledge for IC purposes. You are making a mistake in thinking that metagaming is always bad. In some cases it's not, but it's still metagaming. Come on! The DM is perfectly entitled to create encounter to suit the party in a way or another. He's perfectly entitled to create an encounter that is based on the character powers, to make them use their powers and be happy to have chosen those powers. The DMs MUST do it every now and then. The DMs is also entitled to create an encounter using the party weakness to certain "situation" to make the encounter more dangerous and fun. The DM is still metagaming when he does this by definition in fact. This may be an acceptable form of metagaming, however. I cannot accept that the DM cannot create an encounter because... well I really didn't understand why! No belivable reason are here. I've never said otherwise. If I think that "sundering the fighter's wonderfull two handed sword" is going to create the right dramatic feelings in the game, I will create a such encounter... and I will probably will reward the party with an equal valued two handed sword later, or in another way to make the fighter happy again! My goal is the fun of all, thus there's no "metagame" issue to taken into consideration. The only issue is: "ase my players going to have fun if I use such a tactic?" 1. I don't have an issue with sundering weapons. I never did. Those rules work (by and large). However, I would add that you need to be prepared as a DM to have that sunder attempt on the fighter's sword fail (which might happen given that the sunder weapon rules work). Otherwise if you force the issue, you might start railroading (we've all done it). 2. The problem the OP mentioned, and the problem I always see when items get sundered is this: It's too easy and it destroys too much party resources for the CR that can do it. As I showed several posts ago, an orc TEN LEVELS LESS and a fighter can completely hose that fighter just by sundering items. No matter how the DM wants to handle that (or not) short of houseruling from the start, he has to metagame (or houserule). I've sundered sometimes weapon/items to my player's characters, and it was always an addictive moment. They were rewarded and now they still talk about that session. The only important things is that "sundering" must be a straordinary event, instead of an ordinary one Just because you can houserule it, does NOT mean the rule isn't broken. Likewise just because YOU don't abuse the rule (and I am skeptical here), doesn't mean the rule isn't rife for abuse. -Polaris |
| 0datdude007-18-07, 07:40 PM | I had a sundering character once. Grappling is the best way to counter it trust me :( |
| Willie the Duck07-18-07, 09:51 PM | I will pre-empt my reply with these preemptory statements: 1) Broken, to me, refers to a bad mechanic, not to something being over- or under- powered. 2) I consider the sunder item action to be broken, in that it is inconsistent with the rest of the sundering rules (in that it does not have an opposed roll). also, it is inconsistent in that weapons and shields have options such as magical/psionic/materialistic hardening and immunity, as well as high hardness and hp, while other magic items (of similar cost and benefit), have none of these advantages. This is Broken. That said, I feel that Mr. Polaris is making the logical fallacy of "universalizing a specific". The sunder-item rules certainly allow a DM to metagame when using these rules, but the use of the rules do not, in and of themself, imply the instance of metagaming. If, in the heat of battle (i.e. DM reacting to the situation put in front of him) an NPC uses a tactic that falls under of the guidelines of a broken rule, but does so because it makes perfect sense within the context of the situation, they are taking advantage of a broken rule, but not metagaming. The problem with Sunder Item is that it's too good and specifically it's too good for NPCs. No matter how you slice it, the playing field for the DM (and his NPCs) and the PCs is necessarily asymmetic, and one of the controlling assumptions of DnD is that your gear is as much as part of you as your arms and legs. That's why Sunder is a broken mechanic and why the use of it by the DM is metagaming.....because the DM is taking advantage of a broken rule to make an encounter take up party resources without just reward (because the CR of the encounter would normally be too low). That's what makes this metagaming...and individual cases don't matter much. Too good is a (incomplete) measure of brokenness, but not metagaming. If you can't see that, then too damn bad. Except that, unless you manage to convince at least one person here that you are right, you have effectively done nothing here except waste your time. |
| Polaris07-19-07, 01:52 AM | Willie, Here's the problem. I think we both agree that the Sunder Item rule (not sunder in general) is broken. I think we both agree as to why. Now, it's true that in general taking advantage of a broken mechanic does not mean you are metagaming necessarily (either as a DM or a player), but sunder item is a bit of a special case. Even if it makes sense for the NPC to sunder in battle (just supposing) and for items to be targeted (just supposing), then the DM is forced to metagame after the battle. Either the DM: 1. Makes up for the lost treasure by giving out "too much" treasure for this and other encounters. This is metagaming because the DM is taking advantage of OOC rule knowledge to help the PCs IC. I think this is good metagaming, but only because the rules for sunder item force the DM to do it (because Sunder Item is far too easy and makes low CR encounters far too draining). 2. The DM does NOT make up for the lost treasure in which case the DM is metagaming in the long term by forcing the PCs into a war of attritution they will always lose (a point JTalbain made better than I). Either way, because the Sunder Item rule is broken the DM is forced to metagame if he uses the mechanic. If the rule was not broken, then not enough stuff would be destroyed to make the DM affect the treasure/CR mechanic. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-19-07, 08:22 AM | Neither of those ARE metagaming though Polaris. Metagaming is merely using OOC knowledge IC. So the treasure chest the heroes find was stocked better a hundred years ago by the Fiestan Dwarves. How is that metagaming? Again, by this interpretation you are saying that EVERYTHING in the game is metagaming. If the DM sets up any encounter at all, he is metagaming, If the DM ever attacks a party member, he is metagaming, ect. It just doesn't work like that. Using the rules does not mean you are metagaming, you're operating on the assumption that is does for some reason. A war of attrition is not metagaming. Unfortunately for a DM that tries it, it's not fun either which makes it shoddy DMing, but not metagaming automatically. The DM is never FORCED to metagame, no matter what tactic he uses. Some will, always, despite any tactic or storyline, but that is not a problem with the system. Tell me Polaris what is metagaming? |
| GawainBS07-19-07, 12:25 PM | Vhad, I think you refuse to acknowledge what Polaris tries to convene: many DM's use Sunder as an easy means to "reign in" PC's. Not every DM, but many, of at least a significant minority. :) |
| J_Vhad07-19-07, 02:52 PM | No, I've admitted that many DMs use sunder in a very shoddy manner, yet that is not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the DM. Many DMs use CRs in a very shoddy way. Is that a problem of the system or the DM? What I'm not seeing is how designing a campaign is suddenly Metagaming. The DM is preparing the adventure (which includes encounters, treasure, traps, ect.). Now OOG (out of game) he's the DM. In the game who is supposed to be at this point? Now if he's building a dungeon then yes he needs to figure out who built the dungeon, who's been in the dungeon, how long ago that was, if the traps are still active, poisoned, ect. He CAN metagame in that, but he could just as easily come up with a real story for it all. Polaris has stated that it must be metagaming, but that isn't so. Just because it may or may not be overpowered, or may exactly fit the heroes does not mean the event was metagamed. It can just as easily mean it fits the story the DM came up with. Again, the claim that lots of DMs are shoddy, does not help proof anything about the system. |
| Polaris07-19-07, 03:01 PM | No, I've admitted that many DMs use sunder in a very shoddy manner, yet that is not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the DM. Yet you have defended the Sunder rules (including the broken Sunder item rule) with all the passion of a high-priced attorney defending a billionaire on death row. The problem is that the mechanic is broken, and that creates a situation when using the tactic where the DM has to metagame somewhere (and usually...always that I've always seen...it's used to metagame agianst the players). Many DMs use CRs in a very shoddy way. Is that a problem of the system or the DM? Actually both. The CR system is badly designed and makes it easy to foul up. What I'm not seeing is how designing a campaign is suddenly Metagaming. The DM is preparing the adventure (which includes encounters, treasure, traps, ect.). Now OOG (out of game) he's the DM. In the game who is supposed to be at this point? Now if he's building a dungeon then yes he needs to figure out who built the dungeon, who's been in the dungeon, how long ago that was, if the traps are still active, poisoned, ect. He CAN metagame in that, but he could just as easily come up with a real story for it all. If the BBEG or even the DM is using OOC knowledge to affect things IC, then the DM is metagaming. Period. Occassionally it's appropriate. However, because it's far too easy to Sunder Items, the DM is forced into a quandry. Given the rules as written, if the BBEG knew about them (i.e. the physics of the world) then logically he should be sending swarms of mooks out to sunder all the PC's items making it easy to clean up. However as JTalbain explained, this is metagaming because the DM is exploiting a broken rule. If the DM doesn't do that or makes up for the treasure, then the DM is using OOC knowledge (sunder rule and party wealth) to affect how much gear his NPCs decide to carry in character. Either way, the Sunder rules force the DM to metagame somewhere. The only other option is to houserule. Polaris has stated that it must be metagaming, but that isn't so. Just because it may or may not be overpowered, or may exactly fit the heroes does not mean the event was metagamed. It can just as easily mean it fits the story the DM came up with. If the DM is forced to use OOC knowledge/considerations because of a broken rule, then the rule is forcing the DM to metagame. It's not that hard to understand. Again, the claim that lots of DMs are shoddy, does not help proof anything about the system. It's not just about DMs being shoddy. It's about a broken rule forcing the DM or the player (or both!) into a no-win situation. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-19-07, 03:50 PM | If the DM is forced to use OOC knowledge/considerations because of a broken rule, then the rule is forcing the DM to metagame. It's not that hard to understand. The sky is purple with neon pink polka dots. Not hard to understand, but is it right? Not unless you have some very messed up sunglasses. Just because a concept isn't hard to understand doesn't make it right. The DM isn't forced to metagame you have yet to prove that. If the BBEG or even the DM is using OOC knowledge to affect things IC, then the DM is metagaming. Again you've shown you understand the concept of metagamin, you should realize that it doesn't have to apply to this by now. Given the rules as written, if the BBEG knew about them (i.e. the physics of the world) then logically he should be sending swarms of mooks out to sunder all the PC's items making it easy to clean up. However as JTalbain explained, this is metagaming because the DM is exploiting a broken rule. If the BBEG knows and would hire a bunch of goons IC to bust up the PCs items that he KNEW about, then it's not metagaming. Period. Bad rule? Not in my opinion but some consider it so. Fun? Sometimes, not repeatedly. Metagaming? NO. It's all IC. If the DM doesn't do that or makes up for the treasure, then the DM is using OOC knowledge (sunder rule and party wealth) to affect how much gear his NPCs decide to carry in character. Again, doesn't have to be metagaming. It CAN all be IC. He doesn't have to use OOC knowledge for the dwarves of centuries past to have left an extra sword or two in the crate the heroes find, or for the goons to have just killed a wyrmling and looted it's horde. Sometimes does not equal always. A good DM will have this all planned out ahead so it won't be done in response to so much as done in case of. Again, if this is your definition of metagaming, you've proven nothing because a DM is always forced to metagame by that standard. Using the correct CRs, putting the NORMAL amount of wealth on all the goons, ect. Actually both. The CR system is badly designed and makes it easy to foul up. Do you just come on to the boards to gripe about how bad the system is. Everything seems to be broken and badly designed to you. Or do you just use that as an excuse when you can't counter a point any other way? Yet you have defended the Sunder rules (including the broken Sunder item rule) with all the passion of a high-priced attorney defending a billionaire on death row. The problem is that the mechanic is broken, and that creates a situation when using the tactic where the DM has to metagame somewhere (and usually...always that I've always seen...it's used to metagame agianst the players). I've defended the rules that I do not feel are broken as I defend all things that are griped about unduly. People should have the decency to figure out where the true problem lies rather than placing the blame where it doesn't belong. The problem is not the mechanic, as with a decent DM the mechanic will rarely get used and when it does it will be fine, the problem is with shoddy DMing where the NPCs metagame to know all the heroes items and only sunder them on suicidal carbomb style runs. You keep saying the DM has to metagame somewher, but have yet to prove it. The only thing you've been able to claim is metagaming makes everything, even making a character, metagaming. |
| GawainBS07-19-07, 03:56 PM | I've defended the rules that I do not feel are broken as I defend all things that are griped about unduly. People should have the decency to figure out where the true problem lies rather than placing the blame where it doesn't belong. The problem is not the mechanic, as with a decent DM the mechanic will rarely get used and when it does it will be fine, the problem is with shoddy DMing where the NPCs metagame to know all the heroes items and only sunder them on suicidal carbomb style runs. You assume every DM is a good DM. The rules are there to ensure a fair game with at least a solid background to found any discussions about those rules in. The Sunder rules are so heavily in advantage of the NPCs (due to Wealth/level and such) that they will tempt many DM's. The rules for sundering weapons/shields are less in favour of the NPC, thus fewer DMs are tempted to abuse them. Ergo: Sundering rules for items are broken. Now, since I have used "Ergo", any other arguments are invalid, unless they come up with a Greek or Aramic word. ;) |
| Polaris07-19-07, 04:00 PM | The sky is purple with neon pink polka dots. Not hard to understand, but is it right? Not unless you have some very messed up sunglasses. Just because a concept isn't hard to understand doesn't make it right. The DM isn't forced to metagame you have yet to prove that. Yes I have. I have shown that whenever the DM uses the Sunder Item mechanic, he has to metagame somewhere unless he houserule either by giving extra gear to encounters that in character should have nothing to do with prior ones OR by using a mechanic he knows is broken to keep the party artificially weak over the long term. It's called "Horns of a Dilemna". Again you've shown you understand the concept of metagamin, you should realize that it doesn't have to apply to this by now. I understand it perfectly. It's apparent, however, that you don't fully understand it in the long term over a campaign. If the BBEG knows and would hire a bunch of goons IC to bust up the PCs items that he KNEW about, then it's not metagaming. Period. Bad rule? Not in my opinion but some consider it so. Fun? Sometimes, not repeatedly. Metagaming? NO. It's all IC. JTalbain already explained why this was metagaming. Read his post again. Again, doesn't have to be metagaming. It CAN all be IC. He doesn't have to use OOC knowledge for the dwarves of centuries past to have left an extra sword or two in the crate the heroes find, or for the goons to have just killed a wyrmling and looted it's horde. Sometimes does not equal always. A good DM will have this all planned out ahead so it won't be done in response to so much as done in case of. No, what you have here is the DM back-justifying OOC/metagaming behavior. It's still metagaming. Again, if this is your definition of metagaming, you've proven nothing because a DM is always forced to metagame by that standard. Using the correct CRs, putting the NORMAL amount of wealth on all the goons, ect. Actually putting normal wealth on all goons is part of the rules. There are cases where the DM has to metagame, but I think we'd agree it should be kept to a minimum. Do you just come on to the boards to gripe about how bad the system is. Everything seems to be broken and badly designed to you. Or do you just use that as an excuse when you can't counter a point any other way? Ad hominem attack. nice. I've defended the rules that I do not feel are broken as I defend all things that are griped about unduly. People should have the decency to figure out where the true problem lies rather than placing the blame where it doesn't belong. The problem is not the mechanic, as with a decent DM the mechanic will rarely get used and when it does it will be fine, the problem is with shoddy DMing where the NPCs metagame to know all the heroes items and only sunder them on suicidal carbomb style runs. The fact you don't understand how or why the Sunder Item rule is broken when it seems clear enough to everyone else discredits everything else you say. Blaming the DM (shoddy DMing) is a varient of the Oberoni Fallacy. You keep saying the DM has to metagame somewher, but have yet to prove it. The only thing you've been able to claim is metagaming makes everything, even making a character, metagaming. Yes I have. The broken rule forces the DM into a horns of a dilemna (because the rules shatter the wealth/CR progression). -Polaris |
| Johnny_Angel07-19-07, 04:13 PM | Just curious: "If the DM were always careful to replenish what was lost and make sure that the party was at the suggested wealth level, then I wouldn't have my objections." Wouldn't that be metagaming too? How do monsters in the game know how much wealth a character is supposed to have? So, now monsters are just hoarding treasure to make sure that every resource a player uses is given back. Sorry for playing the Devil's Advocate here, but I think the word "metagaming" has been tossed around way too loosely in this thread. I agree with the OP that it's ridiculous for every encountered creature to sunder like there's no tomorrow, but I still feel to see how it's "metagaming" if sunder is used at all - to me, that's going too far in the other direction. There were many good points made about why people think sundering is broken, but you still haven't swayed me into believing that any type of sundering is metagaming. I highly doubt that most DMs wake up in the morning and say, "Thank you god for letting me live another day; I still have plenty of sundering to do." Basically, I agree with the OP that his DM may be going overboard with sundering all the time, but I disagree that sundering is always metagaming. It's being said that it's metagaming for a DM to use a rule that the DM "knows is broken." If that is true; if what has been said in this ongoing discussion is true, then full casters are broken as well. So, then, is it metagaming for the DM to have the party face a wizard? |
| Polaris07-19-07, 04:22 PM | Just curious: "If the DM were always careful to replenish what was lost and make sure that the party was at the suggested wealth level, then I wouldn't have my objections." Wouldn't that be metagaming too? How do monsters in the game know how much wealth a character is supposed to have? So, now monsters are just hoarding treasure to make sure that every resource a player uses is given back. It sure would be which is my entire point. The Sunder Item mechanic forces the DM to metagame somewhere. Sometimes a DM has to metagame and there is such a thing as 'good' metagaming, but it's still metagaming. Sorry for playing the Devil's Advocate here, but I think the word "metagaming" has been tossed around way too loosely in this thread. With respect to the OP, what else would you call it except metagaming? I agree with the OP that it's ridiculous for every encountered creature to sunder like there's no tomorrow, but I still feel to see how it's "metagaming" if sunder is used at all - to me, that's going too far in the other direction. Fortunately, I never said that. I said that any use of the sunder item mechanic forced the DM to metagame somewhere and I stand by that. Just as a thought excerise, when DMs sunder, how many times to they go after those sharp pointy things trying to kill them vice going after items that are being worn? Yeah, I thought so. Classic metagaming. There were many good points made about why people think sundering is broken, but you still haven't swayed me into believing that any type of sundering is metagaming. I highly doubt that most DMs wake up in the morning and say, "Thank you god for letting me live another day; I still have plenty of sundering to do." To the last point, you'd be (unpleasently) suprised. As to the first point, I've never said that ALL sundering was metagaming. Basically, I agree with the OP that his DM may be going overboard with sundering all the time, but I disagree that sundering is always metagaming. I never said this. It's being said that it's metagaming for a DM to use a rule that the DM "knows is broken." If that is true; if what has been said in this ongoing discussion is true, then full casters are broken as well. So, then, is it metagaming for the DM to have the party face a wizard? I've never said this either. What I am saying is that the way the Sunder Item rule is broken forces the DM to metagame because either he is using OOC knowledge to keep the party artificially weak OR he is using OOC knowledge to boost treasure that IC encounters have. Either way it's metagaming. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-19-07, 04:37 PM | Then prove that he has to use OOC Knowledge IC to keep them on the same level. If you bothered to read, you'll notice I said good DM's will plan plot encounters ahead of time and figure up why what is where well before the encounters ever take place. So how is that back-justifying. I find it humorous that you ignore all the points that you can't find a defense against while posting the same thing over and over as though the more times it's posted the more valid it is. No one has proved that it is metagaming yet to use sunder items, so quite trying to send me back to another post. I've already told you I've read it, I've already responded about it, and you've ignored most of what i've had to say on it. He showed why he believed it was metagaming, but it had nothing to do with actual metagaming. A war of attrition is not metagaming if that is what the NPCs would do IC. I perectly understand metagaming over a long course, but the concept is still the same. It has to be done IC. If their is not character it cannot be done. If there is a character that did it for a reason that suits the character and was knowledge to that character, then it isn't metagaming. It's normal rules to keep you characters on the general wealth guidleines. You can use all the fancy terms you want, but shoddy DMing will break the game in places a good DM won't. That is a fact. |
| GawainBS07-19-07, 04:55 PM | You can use all the fancy terms you want, but shoddy DMing will break the game in places a good DM won't. That is a fact. 100% Agreed. And the Sunder rules tempt DM's to commit the sin of shoddy DMing. |
| Johnny_Angel07-19-07, 07:53 PM | Polaris, you have a lot of good points; I really do see where you are coming from, but I disagree that sundering forces a DM to metagame. Just because a DM sunders a weapon or item of a PC, that doesn't mean the DM is responsible for replacing that weapon or item. Does it suck when you lose an item? Yeah, it probably does, and I'm sure many DMs would figure out a way to compensate the player; however, many other DMs would be just as inclined to let the PC figure out how to replace the lost item or weapon on their own. A wise awakened monkey once told me not to put all my bananas in one bag of holding. Keep in mind though, I still feel (and agree) that the OP's DM sounds to be going a bit sunder-happy; I'm not disputing that. |
| danielinthewolvesden07-20-07, 03:13 AM | Thank you all. Turns out, altho this DM does have a bad past history of Sundering, in that last game he sundered only items from one PC, and it is now pretty clear that THAT player was giving himself extra goodies by just writing them down on his sheet. Still, sundering worn items is FAR too easy. You think they would have corrected that by now.:confused: |
| Leilond07-20-07, 03:20 AM | Thank you all. Turns out, altho this DM does have a bad past history of Sundering, in that last game he sundered only items from one PC, and it is now pretty clear that THAT player was giving himself extra goodies by just writing them down on his sheet. Your DM is a kind one. If one of my player try to "add items" to his sheet he will simply leave my table, forever Still, sundering worn items is FAR too easy. You think they would have corrected that by now.:confused: No it isn't. If you have a potion in you backpack, no one will "sunder it". If you have your wand in your hand and you're near a fighter... well you're looking for the sunder my dear! Sundering "items" is a matter of "protect them". If you have an amulet, keep it under your clothes. If you have a potion, use a "glove of storing" or a "Handy Haversack" (that cannot be recognized as magical only seeing it). There are no "in game reason" to sunder your backpack and if a DM do it he's not playing a good game, unless you gave your opponent an enought good reason to sunder your backpack Thus, it's not the sunder rule to be broken, it is the player abitude to use their fragile items in front of a two-handed angry fighter. Do not blame your DM for your sundered items, blame your self because you showed their powers in the square near the fighter |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:47 AM | Your DM is a kind one. If one of my player try to "add items" to his sheet he will simply leave my table, forever I agree with this sentiment, but two wrongs don't make a right. The player should have been asked to leave. No it isn't. If you have a potion in you backpack, no one will "sunder it". If you have your wand in your hand and you're near a fighter... well you're looking for the sunder my dear! Yes it is. I have proven that overwhelmingly (10th level Orc Barb vs 20th level fighter). Sundering "items" is a matter of "protect them". How? If you have an amulet, keep it under your clothes. There is nothing in the rules that says the enemy can't target the amulet. If you have a potion, use a "glove of storing" or a "Handy Haversack" (that cannot be recognized as magical only seeing it). The gloves themselves and the Haversack can both be sundered easily and if the enemy sees items being pulled from it (or from a backback). Once that happens, either the items are lost or (if the DM is kind) the items spill out and are 'unattended' (and thus probably history very quickly).) There are no "in game reason" to sunder your backpack and if a DM do it he's not playing a good game, unless you gave your opponent an enought good reason to sunder your backpack That is a varient of the Oberani fallacy. Just because a DM shouldn't exploit a broken rule does NOT DEFEND THE RULE AS WRITTEN! Thus, it's not the sunder rule to be broken, it is the player abitude to use their fragile items in front of a two-handed angry fighter. Do not blame your DM for your sundered items, blame your self because you showed their powers in the square near the fighter See above. Just because the DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not imply that rule isn't broken. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-20-07, 04:10 AM | There is nothing in the rules that says the enemy can't target the amulet. You cannot target something that you don't know where it is. This is in the rules The gloves themselves and the Haversack can both be sundered easily and if the enemy sees items being pulled from it (or from a backback). Once that happens, either the items are lost or (if the DM is kind) the items spill out and are 'unattended' (and thus probably history very quickly).) There must be an in-game reason to sunder a glove. If you play wisely no one will sunder your gloves instead of hitting your face. There's instead a good reason to sunder that damn wand that paralized me the previous round That is a varient of the Oberani fallacy. Just because a DM shouldn't exploit a broken rule does NOT DEFEND THE RULE AS WRITTEN! No, absolutely. This game is a "role playing game". The rule ISN'T broken, because a backpack IS easy to be sundered. Thus the rule represent the reality perfectly. The DM job is to use the rules to stay in the belivable. If a DM sunder a magical backpack because "he know it's magical and there's dangerous item inside" but the creature that is sundering doesn't deserve to know that detail, the DM is metagaming and thus it's wrong. The problem isn't the rule, that work perfectly to represent the reality... the problem is how the DM use the rule See above. Just because the DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not imply that rule isn't broken. The rule isn't broken at all. It represent the reality perfectly. A wand is fragile and every fighter can sunder it with a single blow. This isn't unfair not unrealistic. It is the way the things work. If you are a stupid wizard (you not intending YOU, but a generic wizard) and take your frigile wand in front of a fighter, fireballing him for 10d6 damage, the DM is perfectly entitled to make that fighter come to you and sunder your damn wand with a sinle blow. There's nothing broken in this. Thus I think the rules isn't broken. There's nothing wrong in the way it work. The character must protect their items if their power is so evident to "ask to be sundered" |
| Polaris07-20-07, 04:18 AM | You cannot target something that you don't know where it is. This is in the rules False. Actually you can (50% miss chance) as long as you know approximately where it has to be. More to the point, there is nothing in the rules that says you can hide items in the way you suggest. Even somthing like a crucifix (and most amulets would be bigger than this) can be seen...at least the chain around the neck can be seen. There must be an in-game reason to sunder a glove. If you play wisely no one will sunder your gloves instead of hitting your face. There's instead a good reason to sunder that damn wand that paralized me the previous round Why? Rules as written, tell me where this is so. You can't. Saying the DM should not exploit a broken rule does not imply the rules isn't broken No, absolutely. This game is a "role playing game". The rule ISN'T broken, because a backpack IS easy to be sundered. Thus the rule represent the reality perfectly. The DM job is to use the rules to stay in the belivable. If a DM sunder a magical backpack because "he know it's magical and there's dangerous item inside" but the creature that is sundering doesn't deserve to know that detail, the DM is metagaming and thus it's wrong. The problem isn't the rule, that work perfectly to represent the reality... the problem is how the DM use the rule Yes, it's a role playing game, and like all games, DnD has rules. As for representing reality perfectly?!? That makes baby Jesus cry......honestly. There is no logical reason why a ring of deflection and a cloak of camouflage can protect the entire character from head to toe and NOT protect the items he happens to be wearing (including the items generating these effects!) No. The rule is badly, badly broken. The rule isn't broken at all. It represent the reality perfectly. A wand is fragile and every fighter can sunder it with a single blow. This isn't unfair not unrealistic. It is the way the things work. If you are a stupid wizard (you not intending YOU, but a generic wizard) and take your frigile wand in front of a fighter, fireballing him for 10d6 damage, the DM is perfectly entitled to make that fighter come to you and sunder your damn wand with a sinle blow. There's nothing broken in this. Thus I think the rules isn't broken. There's nothing wrong in the way it work. The character must protect their items if their power is so evident to "ask to be sundered" So you think it's OK for a 10th level barbarian to completely destroy the items on a 20the level fighter. Right. Don't invite me to any of your games. Enough said. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-20-07, 04:28 AM | False. Actually you can (50% miss chance) as long as you know approximately where it has to be. More to the point, there is nothing in the rules that says you can hide items in the way you suggest. Even somthing like a crucifix (and most amulets would be bigger than this) can be seen...at least the chain around the neck can be seen. Thus you're saying your character can see inside my backpack? It doesn't say that every elf has an *******, but we can assume they have... thus I can put my amulet under my armour, and you don't know I've one. My rings are under the "armor gauntlet" thus you don't know I've a ring I don't know the game you're playing, but in my games the creatures worn dresses and armors, and the rings aren't round the "armor" but around the "figer that is covered by gauntlet" Why? Rules as written, tell me where this is so. You can't. Saying the DM should not exploit a broken rule does not imply the rules isn't broken First you've to demostrate that the rule is broken. I don't think it is Yes, it's a role playing game, and like all games, DnD has rules. As for representing reality perfectly?!? That makes baby Jesus cry......honestly. There is no logical reason why a ring of deflection and a cloak of camouflage can protect the entire character from head to toe and NOT protect the items he happens to be wearing (including the items generating these effects!) No. The rule is badly, badly broken. No, it isn't. A single pair of mundane gloves and your enemy won't know that you wear a ring at all. A rules is broken only if you've no way to protect against that rule. So you think it's OK for a 10th level barbarian to completely destroy the items on a 20the level fighter. Right. Don't invite me to any of your games. Enough said. -Polaris There's nothing wrong with that. If the fighter is so stupid to put all his most fragile items in plain sight it deserve to see them destroyed. If all the gear he wear appear "normal gears" there's no reason for the barbarian to sunder none of them, except the weapon and the shield... but an opposed attack roll is there to prevent the 10th level barbarian to win against a 20th level fighter in that Armor cannot be sundered by the RAW, thus you cannot sunder any "armor piece" by the RAW (helm, gauntlet for examples) Thus I think the rule isn't broken at all. It is a player job to defend their items from opponents swords |
| Bopple07-20-07, 04:35 AM | I don't think sunder is metagaming in itself. But most item-sunderings are metagaming. Most magic items except weapon, armor and wand/staff(or similar) do only supporting job for the character. There is no reason to sunder an item, unless it poses an apparent threat(eg. staff) or is an absolute necessity to the character(eg. spell pouch of a caster or water-breathing mask of a diver). Except for obvious cases, you don't know what exactly the item does and how much impact it would cause if you sunder it. Heck, it even could be nothing but an ordinary ornamental ring. You don't risk your life on a task with low priority with randomness, and that at the price of your potential treasure. Another problem is, quite a portion of sunderings are done by minions. But IC, they don't have a way to know sundering an item is the better tactic against the character, than actually attacking the character. But they sunder it anyway. Why? Because the DM knows it. |
| Polaris07-20-07, 04:37 AM | Thus you're saying your character can see inside my backpack? It doesn't say that every elf has an *******, but we can assume they have... thus I can put my amulet under my armour, and you don't know I've one. My rings are under the "armor gauntlet" thus you don't know I've a ring I don't know the game you're playing, but in my games the creatures worn dresses and armors, and the rings aren't round the "armor" but around the "figer that is covered by gauntlet" That's all very nice, but you still have yet to demonstrate how rules as written putting your rings under gloves or putting an amulet under your shirt protects it. You can't because the rules don't state this! First you've to demostrate that the rule is broken. I don't think it is Haven't you read PHB page 158 and the prior posts? At best an item is only going to have a 20 AC EVER because only the character's Dex modifier and item's size modifier protects it. No other personal protection protects any of the character's items even though they protect the character head to toe. If you can't see why that's broken, then you never will see it. It's obvious to everyone else but you (and JVhad). I showed in my example, that a 10th level orc will sunder pretty much any item on a 20th level fighter unless he rolls a one on his attack roll. That's broken....and it's not just me saying that. No, it isn't. A single pair of mundane gloves and your enemy won't know that you wear a ring at all. A rules is broken only if you've no way to protect against that rule. You don't. Mundane gloves are still an item, and that item can be sundered (easily in fact)...and you still haven't shown me the rule that says the rings can't be targeted. There's nothing wrong with that. If the fighter is so stupid to put all his most fragile items in plain sight it deserve to see them destroyed. If all the gear he wear appear "normal gears" there's no reason for the barbarian to sunder none of them, except the weapon and the shield... but an opposed attack roll is there to prevent the 10th level barbarian to win against a 20th level fighter in that Armor cannot be sundered by the RAW, thus you cannot sunder any "armor piece" by the RAW (helm, gauntlet for examples) Thus I think the rule isn't broken at all. It is a player job to defend their items from opponents swords So that fancy cloak......no defense. That glowing helm. No defense for that either. The belt.....nope, sorry. Look. One. More. Time. Just because a DM should not exploit a rule does not mean the rule isn't broken. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-20-07, 06:35 AM | That's all very nice, but you still have yet to demonstrate how rules as written putting your rings under gloves or putting an amulet under your shirt protects it. You can't because the rules don't state this! Sorry but you cannot attack a target that you don't know exists. THAT is metagaming. Attacking my backpack because you (the player) know there is a wand inside IS metagaming. Attack my backpack because your character know that there is a wand inside ISN'T metagaming. Haven't you read PHB page 158 and the prior posts? At best an item is only going to have a 20 AC EVER because only the character's Dex modifier and item's size modifier protects it. No other personal protection protects any of the character's items even though they protect the character head to toe. If you can't see why that's broken, then you never will see it. It's obvious to everyone else but you (and JVhad). I showed in my example, that a 10th level orc will sunder pretty much any item on a 20th level fighter unless he rolls a one on his attack roll. That's broken....and it's not just me saying that. No, it isn't broken, it is perfectly balanced. It is your issue to defend your item, not mine You don't. Mundane gloves are still an item, and that item can be sundered (easily in fact)...and you still haven't shown me the rule that says the rings can't be targeted. If you sunder my "mundane gloves" because you (the player) know my character is wearing a ring, you're metagaming. That is metagaming, not sundering. Attacking a mummy with fire without your character has any clue of his "fire weakness" is metagaming. Attacking a mummy with fire because my best weapon is "+1 flaming" isn't metagaming Thus, it isn't "attacking with fire" that is "metagaming", but it depends on when and why you do it The same apply to sundering. It isn't sundering to be "metagame" but it depends on "why and when" the character sunder. So that fancy cloak......no defense. That glowing helm. No defense for that either. The belt.....nope, sorry. The cloack do not show any evidence of his magic properties. Thus it isn't the sunder to be metagame itself, you metagaming because you make your character attack a cloack without your character has any clue that it isn't a "mundane one" You cannot sunder "armor" by the RAW, thus you cannot sunder armor pieces, thus you cannot sunder an helm. This is RAW Look. One. More. Time. Just because a DM should not exploit a rule does not mean the rule isn't broken. -Polaris Look. One. More. Time. Just because you can metagame using sunder it doesn't mean the rules is broken. Look. One. More. Time. Just because you can metagame using sunder, it doesn't mean that the rules is "metagaming". If YOU metagame YOU are metagaming; YOU are the one to be blamed, not the rule A repeat the previous example Attacking a fire weak enemy using fire, without your character has any clue of his "fire weakeness" is metagaming This doesn't mean that "attacking with fire is always metagaming" |
| Polaris07-20-07, 11:24 AM | Sorry but you cannot attack a target that you don't know exists. THAT is metagaming. Attacking my backpack because you (the player) know there is a wand inside IS metagaming. Attack my backpack because your character know that there is a wand inside ISN'T metagaming. Just because it's metagaming (yes I agree!) does NOT mean the DM can't do it. In fact you are proving my point. No, it isn't broken, it is perfectly balanced. It is your issue to defend your item, not mine Huh! You CAN'T. You have to depend that the DM won't "metagame". In short you have to throw yourself at the DM's mercy. If you won't accept any evidence that Sunder Item is broken (and I've provided reams including quotes from the PHB), then it's impossible to prove anything to the likes of you. If you sunder my "mundane gloves" because you (the player) know my character is wearing a ring, you're metagaming. That is metagaming, not sundering. Attacking a mummy with fire without your character has any clue of his "fire weakness" is metagaming. Attacking a mummy with fire because my best weapon is "+1 flaming" isn't metagaming Thus, it isn't "attacking with fire" that is "metagaming", but it depends on when and why you do it The same apply to sundering. It isn't sundering to be "metagame" but it depends on "why and when" the character sunder. Again, so what? You haven't shown that just because it's metagaming, the rule isn't broken. Is there any rule that keeps a monster from targeting a ring under your gloves? No. Is there any rule that keeps the monster from sundering your Mundane gloves? No. Oh...and btw, if the DM wants to be mean enough, he can claim that the monsters saw you put your ringed hands in your gloves earlier so you can't automatically call it metagaming (except in so far that any use of Sunder Item is metagaming). The cloack do not show any evidence of his magic properties. Thus it isn't the sunder to be metagame itself, you metagaming because you make your character attack a cloack without your character has any clue that it isn't a "mundane one" Say WHAT? A cloak of concealment doesn't show any magical properties....oh except for the fact his cloak is...oh I dunno....all BLURRY AND SUCH?!? Lots of cloaks are obviously magical, and at high enough levels, cloaks will usually be magical if worn at all. You cannot sunder "armor" by the RAW, thus you cannot sunder armor pieces, thus you cannot sunder an helm. This is RAW A helm of Telepathy is listed as an item therefore you can sunder it. RAW. Read the rules. Look. One. More. Time. Just because you can metagame using sunder it doesn't mean the rules is broken. False. Actually the FACT the sunder item rules are broken is what permits and encourages the DM to metagame (and in fact requires it at some level). -Polaris |
| Leilond07-20-07, 11:29 AM | Every rule can be used with metagame. Trip is metagaming if you know that your opponent has a 6 strenght value Disarming is metagaming if you know your opponent BAB Most of the rules are broken if you use as "judge meter" the fact that the rule can be used metagaming. The entire D&D manual can judged "broken" if you allow metagaming The only problem is that "metagaming" is forbitten in the DMG as one of the worst errors. Metagame is against the rule Thus if you metagame, you're not playing by the RAW Thus if you metagame and sunder you're not using sunder by the RAW Thus, sunder is broken only if you don't play by the RAW |
| Polaris07-20-07, 11:49 AM | Every rule can be used with metagame. Trip is metagaming if you know that your opponent has a 6 strenght value Disarming is metagaming if you know your opponent BAB Sure, but that doesn't mean the rule is ipso-facto broken. I am not saying that Sunder Item is broken because you can (and indeed must ultimately) use it to metagame. Sunder Item is broken because it makes items far too easy to hit, and permits low CR encounters to drain more resources then they deserve AND there is no reasonable defense against it. With weapons, you can boost your attack bonus, get material that is breakage resistant, and even improve it's magical bonus to make it even harder to sunder. You can do the same with shields. You can't do the same with items as a rule. In short, I am saying (and I've proven) that Sunder Item is broken because it's mechanically problematic. It's the nature of Sunder itself AND the fact that Sunder Item is broken that causes the metagaming. Most of the rules are broken if you use as "judge meter" the fact that the rule can be used metagaming. The entire D&D manual can judged "broken" if you allow metagaming Fortunately my proof that Sunder Item is broken has nothing to do with metagaming. The only problem is that "metagaming" is forbitten in the DMG as one of the worst errors. Metagame is against the rule False. Read the DMG again (pages 43-45). There is no explicit rule against metagaming. We can agree that it's a bad thing to do in most cases, but you, sir, are simply wrong about there being an explicit rule. Thus if you metagame, you're not playing by the RAW This is provably false. (see DMG pages 43-46). Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid. Look you, I have shown the mechanical problems with Sunder Item and how they foul up the Wealth/CR/Level progression. That's all I have to do to show a rule is broken. Whether or not the DM is metagaming has nothing to do with this part of my argument. I will say it again: Just because a DM should not exploit a broken rule, does NOT mean the rule isn't broken. -Polaris |
| GawainBS07-20-07, 12:32 PM | Polaris, you have a lot of good points; I really do see where you are coming from, but I disagree that sundering forces a DM to metagame. Just because a DM sunders a weapon or item of a PC, that doesn't mean the DM is responsible for replacing that weapon or item. Does it suck when you lose an item? Yeah, it probably does, and I'm sure many DMs would figure out a way to compensate the player; however, many other DMs would be just as inclined to let the PC figure out how to replace the lost item or weapon on their own. A wise awakened monkey once told me not to put all my bananas in one bag of holding. Keep in mind though, I still feel (and agree) that the OP's DM sounds to be going a bit sunder-happy; I'm not disputing that. Still, a 20th lvl PC should have about 760000gp and if you suddenly take away 250000gp by sundering his weapon, he'll be hard pressed to replace it. Not to mention his drop in usefulness if he depends on said weapon. (The usefulnes by this level of anything depending on a weapon is debatable, but doesn't matter for the sake of this argument.) |
| Winsee07-20-07, 01:16 PM | Is there a rule that states that a DM can't send the Tarrasque against your 1st level PCs? ...NO Is there a rule that states that the DM can't decide to let the 20th level players have only 500gp of treasure instead of 760,000 gp? ...NO Is there a rule that states that the DM can't send a monster to sunder your character's underpants, even when the monster has no way of knowing if your character put on underpants this morning? ...NO I believe all these things are legal with RAW, but no good DM would ever do them. The DM will always be able to break the game. If he/she wants to "win" against the players it will happen one way or another. A good DM does not use the RAW to abuse the players. Step One: Sunder Underpants ....................... Step Three: Victory!!! |
| J_Vhad07-20-07, 01:19 PM | False. Actually you can (50% miss chance) as long as you know approximately where it has to be. More to the point, there is nothing in the rules that says you can hide items in the way you suggest. Even somthing like a crucifix (and most amulets would be bigger than this) can be seen...at least the chain around the neck can be seen. I think you're still having a problem understandint things here. First off, not being able to see something is different than not knowing something is there. Yes, if the rogue chucking fireballs from his necklace of fireballs IV tucks it into his shirt you can blind fire on it if you want, but you take the penalty you mentioned. If the same rogue has his amulet tucked under the collar shirt and covered by his robes the whole time how do you know it's there? Metagaming or a detection spell. Then it's known IC. Nothing in the rules suggests that you can't store items under objects, nothing suggests you can't hide wands in backpacks. As for the crucifix, it depends entirely on what is being worn. Most armors and their under garments would cover the chain easily if that was the intent. Why? Rules as written, tell me where this is so. You can't. Saying the DM should not exploit a broken rule does not imply the rules isn't broken There should not have to be a rule that says "by the way, you're supposed to roleplay in this Roleplaying Game." Just like there shouldn't have to be a rule that says "by the way, you're supposed to use the board in this game." for a board game. It is an assumption that the players will roleplay as well as the DM. Yes, it's a role playing game, and like all games, DnD has rules. As for representing reality perfectly?!? That makes baby Jesus cry......honestly. There is no logical reason why a ring of deflection and a cloak of camouflage can protect the entire character from head to toe and NOT protect the items he happens to be wearing (including the items generating these effects!) No. The rule is badly, badly broken. Reality is represented in ways in D&D, all fiction must have a shred of reality to tie it to our minds. You're assuming that magic works according to the logic of our world rather than the logic of a fantasy world. Which is a pretty shoddy assumption seeing as how magic doesn't work at all in our world. The rule is only broken when combined with metagaming. So you think it's OK for a 10th level barbarian to completely destroy the items on a 20the level fighter. Right. Don't invite me to any of your games. Enough said. If the items are out in the open and the Orc knows what they are, then yes it's perfectly fine. That's all very nice, but you still have yet to demonstrate how rules as written putting your rings under gloves or putting an amulet under your shirt protects it. You can't because the rules don't state this! Right, they shouldn't have to. It's common sense that what the enemy doesn't know the enemy doesn't know. Rings and amulets don't magically display shoot here in neon signs by the heroes. Show me where the rules state that it doesn't protect items. We can't sunder armor, yet we can easily find the HP and Hardness of various pieces of armor. This implies to me that you must be able to punch through the armor to get at anything underneath. At best an item is only going to have a 20 AC EVER because only the character's Dex modifier and item's size modifier protects it. No other personal protection protects any of the character's items even though they protect the character head to toe. If you can't see why that's broken, then you never will see it. It's obvious to everyone else but you (and JVhad). I showed in my example, that a 10th level orc will sunder pretty much any item on a 20th level fighter unless he rolls a one on his attack roll. That's broken....and it's not just me saying that. You're claiming it's broken because it doesn't make sense to you? You've shown that a 10th level orc that knows what every item the fighter has is, can sunder them all without metagaming. Not broken. Not common. Would that be a fun scenario? Probably not. Is it broken? No. You don't. Mundane gloves are still an item, and that item can be sundered (easily in fact)...and you still haven't shown me the rule that says the rings can't be targeted. He didn't say the rings can't be targeted. He said the enemy has to know about the rings in order to target them. A pair of gloves reduces the chance of the enemy knowing about the rings. You still seem caught up on seeing=knowing. It doesn't. Show me where the rules state you can attack objects that you don't know about. Show me where the rules say "It's ok to metagame instead of Roleplaying." You are still arguing that the rule is broken because it causes metagaming, but you are using examples that involve blatant metagaming as your points. That doesn't work. A simplified version of what has been said is. P: Sunder items is broken because it causes the DM to metagame and the DM can metagame to break stuff he shouldn't know about. L: It's only broken when metagaming, put on some gloves then he'll have to metagame most likely and you know it's crappy DMing. P: No, because the orc can just sunder through the gloves L. So OBVIOUSLY it's broken. The only reason to sunder through the gloves is because the original person knows about the rings in which case it is not metagaming because they are using IC knowledge to perform and IC action. No OOC required. Just because a DM should not exploit a rule does not mean the rule isn't broken. Just because a rule breaks when the DM metagames does not mean the rules is broken. We can do it too. You arn't proving anything with a simple statement like that. Merely showing that you think you have even though you've supported nothing. Just because it's metagaming (yes I agree!) does NOT mean the DM can't do it. I agree. What it does mean is that the DM can't do while playing as the rulebooks suggest. I'm not going to argue playing against what the rulebooks suggest and how the mechanics of that work, because everyone would do it differently. Huh! You CAN'T. You have to depend that the DM won't "metagame". In short you have to throw yourself at the DM's mercy. If you won't accept any evidence that Sunder Item is broken (and I've provided reams including quotes from the PHB), then it's impossible to prove anything to the likes of you. This just shows that you don't understand the concept of the game. You ALWAYS put yourself at the DM's mercy when playing D&D. A DM could throw you up against a CR20 at level one, have that white dragon turn out to be an albino red dragon even though it was freezing villages, ect. Does that prove that CRs and dragons are broken? No. It proves that some DMs are crappy. I will accept EVIDENCE that sunder item is broken, if it's presented. It hasn't been. All you've done is presented scenarios that pretty much say working as intended or DM Metagaming is bad. Again, so what? You haven't shown that just because it's metagaming, the rule isn't broken. Is there any rule that keeps a monster from targeting a ring under your gloves? No. Is there any rule that keeps the monster from sundering your Mundane gloves? No. Oh...and btw, if the DM wants to be mean enough, he can claim that the monsters saw you put your ringed hands in your gloves earlier so you can't automatically call it metagaming (except in so far that any use of Sunder Item is metagaming). If you honestly believe there should be a rule stating you have to roleplay in the roleplaying game, then you really shouldn't be playing. Does anything say you don't have to kill yourself when your character dies? Some things should just be accepted, and the Roleplaying Game tag at the front of the game should be enough to let you know you need to roleplay. So what you're saying at the moment, is if you DM is being shoddy the rule is broken. (mean DMing, DMing vs. Players, metagaming. That's all shoddy DMing). You've been saying that the whole thread. The 90th time doesn't make it any more valid. Say WHAT? A cloak of concealment doesn't show any magical properties....oh except for the fact his cloak is...oh I dunno....all BLURRY AND SUCH?!? Lots of cloaks are obviously magical, and at high enough levels, cloaks will usually be magical if worn at all. IC: Levels what's that? Right so metagaming makes things broken. Thanks for agreeing. Why should the cloak be hard to hit? Nothing suggests that deflection, natural armor, insight, ect. should apply to it. They revolve around your character. Blatant magic makes it a target. It's just like the mage becoming a target after his first big fireball. It's an IC assumption. "Oh but they don't know what it does, they wouldn't fear it more than the person." (figured it would be you next argument.) They know what the person does, the greatest fear people usually have is fear of the unknown or what they don't understand. If they don't know what the cloak does and it's all whispy, blurry, and blatantly not natural then why wouldn't they hurt it? False. Actually the FACT the sunder item rules are broken is what permits and encourages the DM to metagame (and in fact requires it at some level). Just because you suggest something doesn't make it a fact. Unless of course you're a politician and I've missed the memo. Sure, but that doesn't mean the rule is ipso-facto broken. I am not saying that Sunder Item is broken because you can (and indeed must ultimately) use it to metagame. Sunder Item is broken because it makes items far too easy to hit, and permits low CR encounters to drain more resources then they deserve AND there is no reasonable defense against it. With weapons, you can boost your attack bonus, get material that is breakage resistant, and even improve it's magical bonus to make it even harder to sunder. You can do the same with shields. You can't do the same with items as a rule. In short, I am saying (and I've proven) that Sunder Item is broken because it's mechanically problematic. It's the nature of Sunder itself AND the fact that Sunder Item is broken that causes the metagaming. It doesn' CAUSE metagaming, it can be metagamed with. There is a difference. Proof it's broken. You have yet to do this, and after five pages I'm beginning to doubt you can. Fortunately my proof that Sunder Item is broken has nothing to do with metagaming. What proof? Look you, I have shown the mechanical problems with Sunder Item and how they foul up the Wealth/CR/Level progression. That's all I have to do to show a rule is broken. Whether or not the DM is metagaming has nothing to do with this part of my argument. I will say it again: Just because a DM should not exploit a broken rule, does NOT mean the rule isn't broken. You've shown that it can be used to great effectiveness rarely, which is the same with most tactics. You have not shown it's broken. The 91st time you say that still does not make it any more valid. You cannot sunder "armor" by the RAW, thus you cannot sunder armor pieces, thus you cannot sunder an helm. This is RAW Yes you can, just because a helm is included with armor, doesn't mean it is armor. Read up on item slots, the helm slot is seperate from the armor slot as are guantlets, belts, and boots. All of those things can be sundered. Still, a 20th lvl PC should have about 760000gp and if you suddenly take away 250000gp by sundering his weapon, he'll be hard pressed to replace it. Not to mention his drop in usefulness if he depends on said weapon. (The usefulnes by this level of anything depending on a weapon is debatable, but doesn't matter for the sake of this argument.) And? That does not make the mechanic broken. He WILL get a new weapon with any decent DM, and a good DM will keep him on the wealth chart. It seems that everyone against sundering is taking the position that the game is always played DM vs. Players which is not how it is meant to be played according to the rulebooks. |
| GawainBS07-20-07, 01:23 PM | Not true, they're just making clear the rules should be harder, so that IF DM vs Players erupts, the DM has a less redily option. That way, he will be more forced to admit his abusing his power to win and thus (Ergo :p) ultimately this will create less DM vs Players. |
| danielinthewolvesden07-20-07, 01:25 PM | No it isn't. If you have a potion in you backpack, no one will "sunder it". If you have a potion, use a "glove of storing" or a "Handy Haversack" (that cannot be recognized as magical only seeing it). There are no "in game reason" to sunder your backpack and if a DM do it he's not playing a good game, unless you gave your opponent an enought good reason to sunder your backpack r He went thru a period of sundering HHH and this last game he sundered a backpack. Folks, the Sunder rule IS broken. DM metagaming just allows them to exploit the broken rule. |
| ryab07-20-07, 02:05 PM | I like sundering. It can be an effective way to cut off the power supply of a cleric or a wizard. (spell book, holy symbol) I do think it's a little crazy for every NPC to use the exact same tactics though. Yeah, if the DM sundered my spell book I would probably call him a jackass and not play with him anymore. Sounds harsh but a fighter can pick up another weapon, a wizard is completly and absolutley useless once he's out of spells. That begs the question, why would a caster have his spell book out during a fight? |
| Llathos07-20-07, 02:14 PM | There's an awful lot of black and white assessment going on here. IMO, Sunder has a place in the game and can/should be used sparingly as a tactic used by desperate opponents. As we all know, the enemies in D&D fall a LOT more often than the PCs do. When an enemy is cornered and has the chance to remove the tool you're currently hacking him up with, you don't think he'd try? Broken items can be repaired with Make Whole. They can be reenchanted if they are sentimental to you. It could make a great quest line for a party member. Shards of Narsil and all that... |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:12 PM | There's an awful lot of black and white assessment going on here. IMO, Sunder has a place in the game and can/should be used sparingly as a tactic used by desperate opponents. *sigh* I will say this once more. I don't have an issue with Sunder. The rules for sundering weapons and shields work just fine. It's Sunder Item that's the problem because that particular rule is broken. It's far too easy to sunder items and doing so FUBARs the level/wealth/CR guidelines around which DnD advancement built. As we all know, the enemies in D&D fall a LOT more often than the PCs do. When an enemy is cornered and has the chance to remove the tool you're currently hacking him up with, you don't think he'd try? I have no issue with sundering weapons (or shields). Broken items can be repaired with Make Whole. They can be reenchanted if they are sentimental to you. It could make a great quest line for a party member. Sure, for the replacement cost of the item (half in gold and the other half in XP). That's not an answer. -Polaris |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:13 PM | That begs the question, why would a caster have his spell book out during a fight? He wouldn't (no need for a wizard to have his book out during a fight) so going after such a book is blatent metagaming. Just because a DM shouldn't exploit a broken rule, does not mean the rule isn't broken. -Polaris |
| Llathos07-20-07, 03:15 PM | How does it compare to a dispel + shatter combination? Sure, it's 2 spells, but they're done from 100 feet away instead of 5. Same net result. |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:27 PM | How does it compare to a dispel + shatter combination? Sure, it's 2 spells, but they're done from 100 feet away instead of 5. Same net result. That's broken too as is MDJ (same reason). Just because you can point to other things that are broken in the same way does not mean the Sunder Item rule isn't broken. That said let me point out the differences: 1. This tactic only works if you are within 25+5'/2 levels or about 40' or so when this combination first becomes available. The Targeted Dispel has a longer range than this, but the Shatter does not. 2. You can only target one item and you must have legal line of effect to use the targeted dispel magic option. I note that area dispel magic explicitly excludes items. That means that hiding the amulet under your shirt really DOES work against this tactic (unlike the normal sunder item rules). 3. The victim has one round (typically) to respond to this tactic, and a common countermeasure exists, i.e. Silence (which completely voids shatter). Failing that, the victim has one round to hide the item which does explicitly work against this combination. 4. Finally all the defenses the victim has against shatter and dispel magic (including SR, will saves, Dispelling Buffer (psi power)) all help protect the item (because attended items explicitly share the saving throws of their owner). So it's still broken, but it's nowhere near as sure a thing as Sunder Item is. -Polaris |
| Pentar07-20-07, 03:34 PM | Polaris, While I agree that technically you can sunder my lucky rabbit's foot that I've successfully hooped up my bumbum, and that is broken, I think we can all agree that a lot of game balance and reasonableness comes from the DM running the game. If a DM is meta-gaming and specifically targeting magical items that are hidden away in an attempt to sunder them, then that is a combination of a Bad DM + A silly rule. However, a DM could also, legally within the random encounter rules, pit a group of 1st level characters against a CR 5 creature and wipe them out. Does this mean all random encounter tables are broken and the rules are kaput? There has to be a degree of reason and fair-play. D&D is very much balanced by the DM and not the rules themselves. The rules support and help the DM and players craft a playable and enjoyable game. If the either side (players or DM) try to use the rules to exploit their own advantage - then regardless of the rule(s) they are using to exploit, the game is ruined because of the people involved - not because of the rules they are exploiting. |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:41 PM | Pentar, I will try to make this simple and brief. Do you think that the Sunder Item rules as currently written are broken? Yes or No. I agree there should be fair play. I agree that the DM shouldn't exploit broken rules. However: Just because a DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not mean the rule isn't broken. That's what Leilond and JVhad are trying to say, i.e. Sunder Item isn't broken because a good DM will never abuse it. Horsepucky. A rule can be objectively broken (and this is) whether or not a DM chooses to abuse it or not. -Polaris |
| Pentar07-20-07, 03:47 PM | Pentar, I will try to make this simple and brief. Do you think that the Sunder Item rules as currently written are broken? Yes or No. I have not given it a lot of thought - although I have gone through most of the last pages of this thread. If you can infact sunder an item you can't even see (i.e. inside a backpack, or under a suit of armour) then Yes, Sunder is broken. However, by the same token, the random monster encounter tables are also broken, because it allows a DM to use much more powerful creatures than should otherwise be available, to attack the PCs. So, inherently, there's a lot of broken things about D&D. The question that perhaps Leilond and J_Vhad should be asking you is, "Ok, it's broken, but is that relevant?" |
| Polaris07-20-07, 03:55 PM | I have not given it a lot of thought - although I have gone through most of the last pages of this thread. If you can infact sunder an item you can't even see (i.e. inside a backpack, or under a suit of armour) then Yes, Sunder is broken. I suggest you read: Sundering a Worn or Carried Object, PHB (3.5) page 158. It lists the defense for the object in question. That defense is it's "AC" which is 10+wearer's Dex mod+size mod and that's it. There is no other notation that says that anything else protects the item (and therefor under a strict minimalist reading, nothing else does). Go back and read JTalbain's post and mine where I compare a 10th level Half-Orc barbarian to a 20th level fighter. The barbarian needed a natural 20 just to hit the fighter (the expected result), but could sunder the gear [except weapon or shield] on the fighter automatically (baring a natural one on the attck). That's broken given the disparity in levels. However, by the same token, the random monster encounter tables are also broken, because it allows a DM to use much more powerful creatures than should otherwise be available, to attack the PCs. False. The encounter tables give CR guidelines and if you follow them, then you should be ok. Some monsters are mis-CRed, but that's another thread. So, inherently, there's a lot of broken things about D&D. The question that perhaps Leilond and J_Vhad should be asking you is, "Ok, it's broken, but is that relevant?" Of course it's relevant. The broken natural of the Sunder Item rule not only encourages bad GMs to blantently metagame to keep parties weak, but it also forces good ones to metagame just to counteract the damage the broken rule does. -Polaris |
| Pentar07-20-07, 04:59 PM | I suggest you read: Sundering a Worn or Carried Object, PHB (3.5) page 158. It lists the defense for the object in question. That defense is it's "AC" which is 10+wearer's Dex mod+size mod and that's it. There is no other notation that says that anything else protects the item (and therefor under a strict minimalist reading, nothing else does). Go back and read JTalbain's post and mine where I compare a 10th level Half-Orc barbarian to a 20th level fighter. The barbarian needed a natural 20 just to hit the fighter (the expected result), but could sunder the gear [except weapon or shield] on the fighter automatically (baring a natural one on the attck). That's broken given the disparity in levels. Hm, well,... why would I go through all this research and trouble if I can just agree with you right now that Sunder is broken? And... uhm, I think I did do that already ;) False. The encounter tables give CR guidelines and if you follow them, then you should be ok. Some monsters are mis-CRed, but that's another thread. The encounter tables actually include monsters that are properly CR'd but in some cases, way too strong for an average party that they would be thrown against. But that's the whole point - the DM has to use his/her discretion to properly adjudicate the game. That's what I'm getting at. Of course it's relevant. The broken natural of the Sunder Item rule not only encourages bad GMs to blantently metagame to keep parties weak, but it also forces good ones to metagame just to counteract the damage the broken rule does. I don't see how that is the case. A bad DM is a bad DM, regardless of the sunder rules. The Sunder rules may exacerbate what a bad DM will do, but even if you took away the Sunder rules, that DM would still be bad. Ultimately, the sunder rules are broken, but their relevance is only as important as the DM/Players using them. THat's the point I'm making. Of course, chances are and knowing your post history, you're going to disagree with that too, but eh... c'est la vie. |
| GawainBS07-20-07, 05:23 PM | but eh... c'est la vie. All those fancy words... :p |
| Johnny_Angel07-20-07, 08:12 PM | Still, a 20th lvl PC should have about 760000gp and if you suddenly take away 250000gp by sundering his weapon, he'll be hard pressed to replace it. Not to mention his drop in usefulness if he depends on said weapon. (The usefulnes by this level of anything depending on a weapon is debatable, but doesn't matter for the sake of this argument.) Which is why the wise monkey said you shouldn't put all of your bananas into one bag of holding. |
| Polaris07-20-07, 11:51 PM | Ultimately, the sunder rules are broken, but their relevance is only as important as the DM/Players using them. THat's the point I'm making. Of course, chances are and knowing your post history, you're going to disagree with that too, but eh... c'est la vie. I actually don't disagree with this, but that leads to a point I made several pages ago. To avoid the metagaming inherent in the Sunder Item rule, the DM (and group) have to houserule, and you've just touched on the most common houserule: Don't use Sunder Item. Ever. It's the same de facto houserule that a lot of groups play under often without realizing it (and often it extends to MDJ, Dispell+Shatter, and other mechanics that break items too easily). -Polaris |
| Willie the Duck07-21-07, 12:36 AM | I've never said this either. What I am saying is that the way the Sunder Item rule is broken forces the DM to metagame because either he is using OOC knowledge to keep the party artificially weak OR he is using OOC knowledge to boost treasure that IC encounters have. Either way it's metagaming. First and foremost, it doesn't matter what "I've" (as in you) have shown. He was addressing the forum audience as a whole. Constantly making it 'Polaris vs. the world' does a diservice to yourself first and discourse itself second. I have to disagree with the contension that the DM making treasure alloccations based on PC expenditure/loss is metagaming (or at least the same metagaming that the gauntlet of henchman ordered to sunder items is). You see, a DM ALWAYS alloccates treasure based on out of character knowledge of the PC's situation. He also designs encounters and dungeons within a certain CR of the PC's level. Why? Because that's his job. The concept of Out of Character breaks down for a DM because he isn't a character. Now if the NPCs, (the DMs extension of his will within the adventure) start making decisions on whether or not to sunder based on knowledge that they don't have, then that is metagaming (or, if you prefer, the darker side of metagaming). My primary point is that you have technically proven your point, IF you use a particular definition of metagaming. One that, in my opinion, is so broad as to be useless, because it defines nearly all DM actions as metagaming, and thus offers no utility to the acknowledgement that metagaming has occurred. |
| Willie the Duck07-21-07, 12:42 AM | Yet you have defended the Sunder rules (including the broken Sunder item rule) with all the passion of a high-priced attorney defending a billionaire on death row. And would you please stop trying to poison the well with character assassinations! This does nothing but make you look like a grandstander. Address peoples points, not question their motives or characters, they are quite irrelevant. (and no one has made a more passionate, one sided, and preemptively self assured defense of their own position as you yourself has done. So quite throwing stones, your house is quite crystalline). Seriously. I don't know what you are hoping to gain out of this discussion, but if 'the respect of others as a knowledged D&D expert' is one of them, you have to learn to be above pettyness. |
| Polaris07-21-07, 12:47 AM | Willie, I fully stand by what I quoted because it illustrated the original poster's lack of credibility on the Sunder Item issue. He was speaking from both sides of his mouth both on the metagaming issue and on the issue that Sunder Item is broken. In short, it seemed like he had an agenda (and his refusal to answer my very direct question on that seems to be more evidence). More to the point you are about four pages late, and IMHO that's simply rude, and more to the point not your place. Had the poster wanted to complain, he had ample opportunity to do so....and my defense was simple. I was telling the truth. He was defending a rule that is essentially indefensible as written and thus the analogy while harsh is a perfectly valid one. -Polaris Edit PS: If you really want me to avoid 'poisoning the well', then I'd suggest (nicely I think) that you might want to go easy on the venom yourself. Enough said. |
| Pentar07-21-07, 01:32 AM | I have to disagree with the contension that the DM making treasure alloccations based on PC expenditure/loss is metagaming (or at least the same metagaming that the gauntlet of henchman ordered to sunder items is). You see, a DM ALWAYS alloccates treasure based on out of character knowledge of the PC's situation. He also designs encounters and dungeons within a certain CR of the PC's level. Why? Because that's his job. The concept of Out of Character breaks down for a DM because he isn't a character. Now if the NPCs, (the DMs extension of his will within the adventure) start making decisions on whether or not to sunder based on knowledge that they don't have, then that is metagaming (or, if you prefer, the darker side of metagaming). This is an excellent point, re: DM Metagaming. That has been a constant theme of this thread and it's bothered me a lot. The very concept that a DM can "metagame" is somewhat erroneous. I know when I DM, I re-plan encounters for players based on my intimate knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. I pre-plan treasure rewards based on their needs and wants. If this is DM meta-gaming then, so be it. I just call it DMing. |
| Polaris07-21-07, 01:40 AM | This is an excellent point, re: DM Metagaming. That has been a constant theme of this thread and it's bothered me a lot. The very concept that a DM can "metagame" is somewhat erroneous. Actually it's not as I will explain below. I know when I DM, I re-plan encounters for players based on my intimate knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. I pre-plan treasure rewards based on their needs and wants. If this is DM meta-gaming then, so be it. I just call it DMing. It's metagaming. Now if you are tailoring your campaign to appeal to all of your players and you are trying to insure that everyone gets spotlight time, etc, then this may be good metagaming. OTOH, if you are designing encounters that constantly expose party weaknesses, and if you constantly throw encounters at the party that in the long term the party can't deal with because you (the DM) are exploiting a broken rule, then this is bad metagaming.....even if you back-justify it for the NPCs in question. Likewise, there is supposed to be a certain amount of treasure in each enounter. Tweaking that is one thing, but saying that a bunch of Goblin bandits had more treasure than usual because the orcs in the evil temple sundered a bunch of party items, is also an example of DM metagaming. -Polaris |
| Pentar07-21-07, 01:49 AM | It's metagaming. Now if you are tailoring your campaign to appeal to all of your players and you are trying to insure that everyone gets spotlight time, etc, then this may be good metagaming. OTOH, if you are designing encounters that constantly expose party weaknesses, and if you constantly throw encounters at the party that in the long term the party can't deal with because you (the DM) are exploiting a broken rule, then this is bad metagaming.....even if you back-justify it for the NPCs in question. Likewise, there is supposed to be a certain amount of treasure in each enounter. Tweaking that is one thing, but saying that a bunch of Goblin bandits had more treasure than usual because the orcs in the evil temple sundered a bunch of party items, is also an example of DM metagaming. My problem with the term meta-gaming is perhaps the inherently negative connotation that it brings with it. Meta-gaming is, as often expressed on these forums, a bad thing. But a DM has no choice but to metagame. He cannot plan the adventure without knowing about the player's statistics, levels, equipment and ultimately, their individual interests and goals. In essence, all a DM does is metagame because it is his "metagame" that makes the whole damn thing work. Hence my last statement - It's not meta-gaming for a DM. It's just DMing. And then it's just a question of good DMing vs. bad DMing. Regardless, I think this particular topic has been beaten to death. You won't hear me arguing with you about Sunder being broken or not broken - it's a pretty irrelevant ability in the campaigns I've played in and run... EDIT: the only thing I would say to DM metagaming is if the NPCs suddenly had insight and knowledge into the character's weaknesses that they shouldn't justifiably know... then you could say that the DM's NPCs are "meta-gaming"... which is actually redundant and silly because it's just the DM... doing Bad DMing. |
| rironin07-21-07, 03:30 AM | My problem with the term meta-gaming is perhaps the inherently negative connotation that it brings with it. Meta-gaming is, as often expressed on these forums, a bad thing. But a DM has no choice but to metagame. He cannot plan the adventure without knowing about the player's statistics, levels, equipment and ultimately, their individual interests and goals. In essence, all a DM does is metagame because it is his "metagame" that makes the whole damn thing work.Totally agree with you here (you may be shocked :P). I think part of the reason everyone might be fighting you so hard, Polaris, is that we define metagaming as an inherently bad thing that is usually perpetrated by PCs, and that usually has a fairly narrow definition. Your definition seems to have widened the field to include, as Pentar says, everything that DMs do. So now we've got "good metagaming" and "bad metagaming" and we're doing nothing but metagaming, and that seems like a new kind of jargon, and some would say an unnecessary addition to the vernacular we've got. Most of what you're saying makes good sense, Polaris, but it sort of sounds like your DMing style differs a whole lot from mine. You make it sound like your job as DM is to create a perfectly ordinary, average, prefabbed campaign world which doesn't take the PCs' particular abilities into account in any way, and then just describe the world and play the prefabbed NPCs to the hilt and see how the PCs do. It sounds like the DM in your world isn't really running the show but just rolling his dice and announcing what happens. As a DM the end result of what I do is the same - I roll the dice and announce what happens. But first I plan specific encounters for specific PCs with specific rewards at the end. Looking into encounters more closely than simply checking the CR and rolling on the treasure tables is so necessary it's just assumed for most DMs - we don't see it as anything less than the entirety of our jobs. So I don't worry too much about having to compensate my players with money to replace sundered items, just like I don't worry about bringing their characters back to life if I drop a meteor on them. When you're the DM, there's no one else to blame. :P |
| danielinthewolvesden07-21-07, 04:17 AM | Willie, I fully stand by what I quoted because it illustrated the original poster's lack of credibility on the Sunder Item issue. He was speaking from both sides of his mouth both on the metagaming issue and on the issue that Sunder Item is broken. In short, it seemed like he had an agenda (and his refusal to answer my very direct question on that seems to be more evidence). -Polaris . Umm, friend? I am "the original poster". What question of yours have I refused to answer?:confused: |
| GawainBS07-21-07, 04:33 AM | Which is why the wise monkey said you shouldn't put all of your bananas into one bag of holding. But the wise monkey's bag of holding will still be a lot smaller after the sundering than his companions/ than what is expected in the CR system. |
| Polaris07-21-07, 06:39 PM | Umm, friend? I am "the original poster". What question of yours have I refused to answer?:confused: My apologies. I meant the original poster of that quote, not the original poster in this thread, but I should have been clearer. I wasn't talking about you. -Polaris |
| Johnny_Angel07-21-07, 07:47 PM | But the wise monkey's bag of holding will still be a lot smaller after the sundering than his companions/ than what is expected in the CR system. That is true, but he'll still have bananas left in his other bags. |
| Polaris07-21-07, 08:13 PM | That is true, but he'll still have bananas left in his other bags. ....which is tremendously comforting I'm sure when your limbs are being ripped out by the 800lb gorrilla when you don't have enough banannas to give him [and you are supposed to]. (slightly sarcastic) -Polaris |
| Willie the Duck07-21-07, 10:13 PM | Willie, I fully stand by what I quoted because it illustrated the original poster's lack of credibility on the Sunder Item issue. He was speaking from both sides of his mouth both on the metagaming issue and on the issue that Sunder Item is broken. In short, it seemed like he had an agenda (and his refusal to answer my very direct question on that seems to be more evidence). More to the point you are about four pages late, and IMHO that's simply rude, and more to the point not your place. Had the poster wanted to complain, he had ample opportunity to do so....and my defense was simple. I was telling the truth. He was defending a rule that is essentially indefensible as written and thus the analogy while harsh is a perfectly valid one. -Polaris Edit PS: If you really want me to avoid 'poisoning the well', then I'd suggest (nicely I think) that you might want to go easy on the venom yourself. Enough said. Scoff. |
| Polaris07-21-07, 10:26 PM | Scoff. Thank you for adding so much to the discussion. -Polaris |
| Meep32607-22-07, 05:33 PM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. 'Cause if it's a dungeon or some other similar thing you can have it easily repaired by Mending or through other magical means. |
| J_Vhad07-22-07, 06:30 PM | I fully stand by what I quoted because it illustrated the original poster's lack of credibility on the Sunder Item issue. He was speaking from both sides of his mouth both on the metagaming issue and on the issue that Sunder Item is broken. In short, it seemed like he had an agenda (and his refusal to answer my very direct question on that seems to be more evidence). You have yet to show it as broken. You've merely shown that it is effective in situation, which strangely enough resembles most combat maneuvers...useful in certain situations. You have yet to show it as metagaming. Namely because you have yet to point out what NPC a DM is giving OOC knowledge to when he designs the adventure and treasure. The DM designs the story. That is not metagaming. It is metagaming for the DM to give a character random knowledge of all the PCs gear when he wouldn't have it. It is not metagaming for the DM to design a story based around the characters amulet heirloom being sundered and rebuilt. I've answered your questions at least as much as you've answered mine, and yes I have an agenda. I havn't had to do anything with it yet however, because it involves showing that sunder item is not broken inherently, and since no proof has been shown that it is, I don't need to. It's metagaming. Now if you are tailoring your campaign to appeal to all of your players and you are trying to insure that everyone gets spotlight time, etc, then this may be good metagaming. Who are you IC? |
| Polaris07-22-07, 07:00 PM | 'Cause if it's a dungeon or some other similar thing you can have it easily repaired by Mending or through other magical means. That's only true if dealing with nonmagical items (and that's generally true only at the lowest levels). The more general (and correct) answer is this: So many NPCs sunder stuff because new NPCs always come prestocked with gear while PC parties get depleted. JTalbain explained how that breaks the CR/Level/wealth mechanic some pages ago. -Polaris |
| Polaris07-22-07, 07:07 PM | You have yet to show it as broken. You've merely shown that it is effective in situation, which strangely enough resembles most combat maneuvers...useful in certain situations. False. Even my critics (other than you and Lielond) give me this one. Sunder Item is definately a broken rule. It doesn't follow the other sunder rules in the game (for shields or weapons) yet logically speaking, it should be possible to protect your belt (for example) with your shield or weapon (i.e. parry with the weapon or shield). Secondly, magical items other than shields and weapons can't be made resistant to breakage in general (while shields and weapons can be). Finally, I proved that an encounter ten levels LESS can sunder items on any roll except a natural one, and given that encounters ten levels less are not supposed to exhaust ANY party resources (which is why they are worth no XP), this breaks the XP/CR/Wealth system. Ergo the rule is broken. You have yet to show it as metagaming. Namely because you have yet to point out what NPC a DM is giving OOC knowledge to when he designs the adventure and treasure. The DM designs the story. That is not metagaming. The DM is either forced to give otherwise independant encounters more treasure based on results of encounters that the new NPCs should know nothing about (which is metagaming by definition) OR the DM is exploiting a hole in the rules that keeps the party weaker than they should be (which is also metagaming as JTalbain explained). Either way it's metagaming. It is metagaming for the DM to give a character random knowledge of all the PCs gear when he wouldn't have it. It is not metagaming for the DM to design a story based around the characters amulet heirloom being sundered and rebuilt. It can be actually (to the second point). Certainly it's railroading which is it's own problem. I've answered your questions at least as much as you've answered mine, and yes I have an agenda. I havn't had to do anything with it yet however, because it involves showing that sunder item is not broken inherently, and since no proof has been shown that it is, I don't need to. Please. I have given tons of proof that Sunder Item is broken. As I said, even my critics give me this one. The fact you have an agenda (and thanks for finally admitting it), makes anything else you say here suspect. Who are you IC? No one. I am not involved in the OP's campaign whatsoever. Seriously. I don't have an agenda (unlike you). -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-22-07, 10:26 PM | No one. I am not involved in the OP's campaign whatsoever. Seriously. I don't have an agenda (unlike you). Exactly, you are no one. Just as the DM is no one IC when he is creating the campaign, encounter, ect. If he is no one IC then he can't be giving OOC knowledge to someone IC. You do to have an agenda. You've posted seven pages to claim that sunder items is broken. Your proof, completely reliant on metagaming. |
| Polaris07-22-07, 11:14 PM | Exactly, you are no one. Just as the DM is no one IC when he is creating the campaign, encounter, ect. If he is no one IC then he can't be giving OOC knowledge to someone IC. 5 yard penalty. Willful misreading of quote. I don't have any role within the OP's campaign. That's a far cry from saying I am 'no one' in an existential sense. Not only that, but what you say is also false. Even though the DM may not be any one person in particular, me most certainly can (and too often does) give OOC knowledge to NPCs IC. It happens all the time. You do to have an agenda. You've posted seven pages to claim that sunder items is broken. Your proof, completely reliant on metagaming. False. My proof that Sunder Item is a broken rule has nothing to do with metagaming. Not. One. Thing. Sunder Item is broken because it's too easy for lower CR challenges to destroy/drain high level party gear/resources. I then point out that because Sunder Item is broken, it forces the DM to either hourserule (often implicitly) or metagame. -Polaris |
| J_Vhad07-22-07, 11:43 PM | 5 yard penalty. Willful misreading of quote. I don't have any role within the OP's campaign. That's a far cry from saying I am 'no one' in an existential sense. Not only that, but what you say is also false. Even though the DM may not be any one person in particular, me most certainly can (and too often does) give OOC knowledge to NPCs IC. It happens all the time. You answered it full and well knowing what I asked, then you do the same thing you gripe at me for? Right, that's logical. Read it again mate. Who is the DM IC when he is designing the encounters, campaign, adventure, ect? Yes he is everyone while he is running them, but who is he when he designs them? False. My proof that Sunder Item is a broken rule has nothing to do with metagaming. Not. One. Thing. Sunder Item is broken because it's too easy for lower CR challenges to destroy/drain high level party gear/resources. You havn't proven that it's TOO easy. You havn't proven that it's broken. All you've proven is that it can easily be broken and abused by a metagaming DM. I then point out that because Sunder Item is broken, it forces the DM to either hourserule (often implicitly) or metagame. Again you've proven neither. You've merely stated your opinion on it based on a flawed interpretation of metagaming (you can't metagame when there is no IC) and assumed that keeping the party on the wealth guidelines is a houserule when it seems to be the clear intent of the rules. |
| Polaris07-22-07, 11:51 PM | You havn't proven that it's TOO easy. You havn't proven that it's broken. All you've proven is that it can easily be broken and abused by a metagaming DM. Yes I have. I have shown explicitly that: 1. The Sunder Item rules don't follow the standard for other sundering rules. 2. Items are easier to break inherently. 3. Items are easier to hit. I even illustrated the point by showing that a 10th level half-orc barbarian would need a natural 20 to hit a 20th level fighter (the expected result) even if raging, but would sunder any item on the same 20th level fighter on any roll except a natural 1. Given that losing items for a 20th level character (esp 20th level fighter) is literally a fate worse than death, that's broken. Even my harshest critics give me this one. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-23-07, 04:05 AM | False. Even my critics (other than you and Lielond) give me this one. Sunder Item is definately a broken rule. It doesn't follow the other sunder rules in the game (for shields or weapons) yet logically speaking, it should be possible to protect your belt (for example) with your shield or weapon (i.e. parry with the weapon or shield). Secondly, magical items other than shields and weapons can't be made resistant to breakage in general (while shields and weapons can be). Finally, I proved that an encounter ten levels LESS can sunder items on any roll except a natural one, and given that encounters ten levels less are not supposed to exhaust ANY party resources (which is why they are worth no XP), this breaks the XP/CR/Wealth system. Ergo the rule is broken. No, it isn't broken. It is a perfectly realistic rule. It work perfectly well if the DM make his NPC or Monster act according to theire knowledge. You are saying that a rule is broken because a DM can use it to make the game bad. Thus the entire game is broken, because a DM can use the rules to isntantly kill the party Please. I have given tons of proof that Sunder Item is broken. As I said, even my critics give me this one. The fact you have an agenda (and thanks for finally admitting it), makes anything else you say here suspect. No proof was given You said that "if the DM metagame, sunder can be used to make the game bad". But "if the DM metagame" all the rules can be used to make the game bad, thus sunder is like all the other rules The sunder worn object rules aren't broken at all. It works perfectly. The objects like "backpack" MUST be easy to be sundered. It the DM is good, he will play the rule in the right way and nothing will be wrong. If a DM is "bad", the sunder rule will be the last of your problems, because all the rule can be used in a bad way. The sunder rule represent "how easy it to cut a cloak", if the creature has some reason to cut that cloak. If the creature that is fighting has no in game reason to cut a cloak, the DM will be a bad DM sundering it. But if that cloack fired a scorching ray (for example) and the creature is a "experienced fighter", it won't be realistic to see the fighter that do not immediately cut that cloak. If you play this game, you have to role-play. If you're a fighter, it is supposed that you enter a battle keeping good attention to "fragile" objects you've with you. Thus you have to "hide" from sight every fragile item, thus your enemy fighter won't know about their existence. If your rings are under your gauntlet and your amulet is under you armor, and your cloack do not fire any ray and seem a normal cloack, the DM won't sunder none of that. If that DM sunder them, it isn't the rule to be broken, it is the DM If you are a stupid fighter that start a fight saying "You see this ring? This will make you die, firing a stored spell from it", you DESERVE the ring sundered. You wanted that, and it won't be realistic to not see it broken |
| Polaris07-23-07, 10:50 AM | No, it isn't broken. It is a perfectly realistic rule. It work perfectly well if the DM make his NPC or Monster act according to theire knowledge. You are saying that a rule is broken because a DM can use it to make the game bad. Thus the entire game is broken, because a DM can use the rules to isntantly kill the party No. I am not saying that. I am saying that the Sunder Item rule is bad because it breaks the game (because it makes low level encounters too deadly and too draining). Why? Because Sunder Item doesn't follow the rules inherent in Sundering anything else and because it doesn't, it's too easy to Sunder Items for far too great an impact. No proof was given I gave lots of proof. Read page 158 of the PHB again and review my example of the 10th level half-orc barbarian vs the 20th level fighter. That fact you refuse to accept what I am saying does not mean I haven't proven this point. You said that "if the DM metagame, sunder can be used to make the game bad". But "if the DM metagame" all the rules can be used to make the game bad, thus sunder is like all the other rules I have shown that because the Sunder Item Rules are broken, the DM is forced into a situation where he must metagame somewhere (or else discard the rule). The sunder worn object rules aren't broken at all. Yes they are. Badly broken in fact. It works perfectly. The objects like "backpack" MUST be easy to be sundered. It the DM is good, he will play the rule in the right way and nothing will be wrong. If a DM is "bad", the sunder rule will be the last of your problems, because all the rule can be used in a bad way. The sunder rule represent "how easy it to cut a cloak", if the creature has some reason to cut that cloak. If the creature that is fighting has no in game reason to cut a cloak, the DM will be a bad DM sundering it. But if that cloack fired a scorching ray (for example) and the creature is a "experienced fighter", it won't be realistic to see the fighter that do not immediately cut that cloak. So it's easier to hit your cloak than it is to hit you? How does that work exactly? Your cloak is not protected by all the magical protections that affect you (even though saving throws explicitly apply to attended objects). Again, how does that work exactly? How is it that a cloak of displacement (for example) isn't protected by it's own displacement??????? How is it that you can protect your sword and shield by (presumably) parrying, yet you can not use your weapon and shield to protect your items??????? No. This rule is unrealistic and very definately broken. If you play this game, you have to role-play. If you're a fighter, it is supposed that you enter a battle keeping good attention to "fragile" objects you've with you. Thus you have to "hide" from sight every fragile item, thus your enemy fighter won't know about their existence. If your rings are under your gauntlet and your amulet is under you armor, and your cloack do not fire any ray and seem a normal cloack, the DM won't sunder none of that. If that DM sunder them, it isn't the rule to be broken, it is the DM If you are a stupid fighter that start a fight saying "You see this ring? This will make you die, firing a stored spell from it", you DESERVE the ring sundered. You wanted that, and it won't be realistic to not see it broken Ah, you sound like a role-playing elitist here. The Sunder Item rule is broken and you are engaging in a fallacy. Just because the DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not mean the rule isn't broken. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-23-07, 11:08 AM | No. I am not saying that. I am saying that the Sunder Item rule is bad because it breaks the game (because it makes low level encounters too deadly and too draining). Why? Because Sunder Item doesn't follow the rules inherent in Sundering anything else and because it doesn't, it's too easy to Sunder Items for far too great an impact. It make a low level encounter too deadly for stupid characters, not for smart ones. It is right in that way I gave lots of proof. Read page 158 of the PHB again and review my example of the 10th level half-orc barbarian vs the 20th level fighter. That fact you refuse to accept what I am saying does not mean I haven't proven this point. IF the fighter is so stupid it DESERVE to have his items sundered I have shown that because the Sunder Item Rules are broken, the DM is forced into a situation where he must metagame somewhere (or else discard the rule). The DM isn't forced to metagame, never Ah, you sound like a role-playing elitist here. The Sunder Item rule is broken and you are engaging in a fallacy. Just because the DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not mean the rule isn't broken. No. The fact that the DM have to play out of the rule to make a rule broken demostrate the rule isn't broken |
| J_Vhad07-23-07, 11:13 AM | No. I am not saying that. I am saying that the Sunder Item rule is bad because it breaks the game (because it makes low level encounters too deadly and too draining). Why? Because Sunder Item doesn't follow the rules inherent in Sundering anything else and because it doesn't, it's too easy to Sunder Items for far too great an impact. It can make them to deadly and too draining. It doesn't automatically. Nice try though. It's not broken, it can just be used poorly just as the CR system can be. Sunder item doesn't follow what rules inherently? The sunder weapon and shield rules? So you have two slot that follow one set of rules and a much greater number of slots (helms, guantlets, rings, amulets, ect.) that follow a second set of rules. Why are the weapon and shield rules suddenly the norm? I gave lots of proof. Read page 158 of the PHB again and review my example of the 10th level half-orc barbarian vs the 20th level fighter. That fact you refuse to accept what I am saying does not mean I haven't proven this point. You've shown it used to great effectiveness, not broken. A 10th level Barbarian with a heavy pick coup de graces a 20th level fighter. Str 28/ +9, D6 die type, and 10 points of power attack X2 for two handed. The fighter takes 4D6 + Good God damage and has to make a Fort save vs. death. Is coup de grace broken? In some circumstances it's effective, but it's certainly not broken. Same holds for Sunder Item. You've shown it in an effective generic situation, nothing more. You certainly havn't proved it to be broken. So it's easier to hit your cloak than it is to hit you? How does that work exactly? Your cloak is not protected by all the magical protections that affect you (even though saving throws explicitly apply to attended objects). Again, how does that work exactly? How is it that a cloak of displacement (for example) isn't protected by it's own displacement??????? How is it that you can protect your sword and shield by (presumably) parrying, yet you can not use your weapon and shield to protect your items??????? No. This rule is unrealistic and very definately broken. Because magic doesn't follow real world logic, sunder item must be broken. Very poor argument there. Because the combat rules don't follow real world logic, sunder item must be broken. Another poor argument. Ah, you sound like a role-playing elitist here. The Sunder Item rule is broken and you are engaging in a fallacy. Just because the DM should not exploit a broken rule, does not mean the rule isn't broken. We havn't engaged in the fallacy. It doesn't apply. First you must prove that the rule IS broken. Just because the DM CAN break a rule, doesn't mean the rule is always broken. Even my harshest critics give me this one. I really don't believe I have, so don't try to lie to me. I also love how yet again you skipped the point that you could not disprove, acting as though it wasn't there. |
| Polaris07-23-07, 11:14 AM | It make a low level encounter too deadly for stupid characters, not for smart ones. It is right in that way IF the fighter is so stupid it DESERVE to have his items sundered Utter balderdash. The fighter can not protect his cloak, his helm, his belt, his gloves, his backpack (and if the backpack is sundered, then all the items with it become unattended, and they may as well have been sundered), etc. It's simply too easy to sunder items in the game. Period. The DM isn't forced to metagame, never True. He can houserule. No. The fact that the DM have to play out of the rule to make a rule broken demostrate the rule isn't broken Except I've shown that this isn't true. The Sunder Item rule is broken regardless....and a rule can be broken regardless of what the DM does. That's the point behind the Oberoni Fallacy in fact. -Polaris |
| Polaris07-23-07, 11:26 AM | It can make them to deadly and too draining. It doesn't automatically. Nice try though. It's not broken, it can just be used poorly just as the CR system can be. False. Nice try though. If a rule can be used without alteration to make the encounter too deadly and draining, then the rule is broken. Of course that isn't going to happen 'automatically' (because the NPCs don't have to sunder the item), but a rule can (and is in this case) broken regardless of anything the DM does. Sunder item doesn't follow what rules inherently? The sunder weapon and shield rules? So you have two slot that follow one set of rules and a much greater number of slots (helms, guantlets, rings, amulets, ect.) that follow a second set of rules. Why are the weapon and shield rules suddenly the norm? Because the Sword and Shield rules are listed first and because those are the ones emphasized on page 158. The Sunder Item rules are clearly written as an afterthought. It's clear when one reads page 158 of the PHB that the sword and shield sunder rules are supposed to be the baseline rules (and the sunder checklist is even written around the assumption that a weapon or shield is being sundered). You've shown it used to great effectiveness, not broken. Nope. I've pretty much shown it's broken. A 10th level Barbarian with a heavy pick coup de graces a 20th level fighter. Str 28/ +9, D6 die type, and 10 points of power attack X2 for two handed. The fighter takes 4D6 + Good God damage and has to make a Fort save vs. death. Is coup de grace broken? That 10th level barbian has to render the 20th level fighter helpless (as in unconscious or otherwise completely disabled). That isn't a fair comparison at all since a 10th level barbarian can (and should!) sunder as many items as possible before dying. It really is the DnD equivalent of a suicide bombing. In some circumstances it's effective, but it's certainly not broken. Same holds for Sunder Item. You've shown it in an effective generic situation, nothing more. You certainly havn't proved it to be broken. If I show it's too effective in the generic situation, then I've done enough. After all it's the generic situation. (It's what generic means). Because magic doesn't follow real world logic, sunder item must be broken. Very poor argument there. Huh? What magic? I am talking about the inability of a fighter to use his weapon or shield to protect ANY of his items. I am talking about the way that the rules don't permit items of protection to protect themselves WHILE still providing protection for the underlying wearer....and yes, I can fault magic because it's mechanically inconsistant (and this is a game after all). After all, a cloak of resistance DOES improve it's own saves as long as it is actually being worn (by improving the saves of the wearer). Because the combat rules don't follow real world logic, sunder item must be broken. Another poor argument. Yet this was the argument that Lielond was trying to posit. I am not asking the combat rules to follow real world logic. I am asking them to be self-consistant If the sunder item rule isn't self-consistant with the rest of the combat (and sunder) rules (and it's not), then it's a bad rule. We havn't engaged in the fallacy. It doesn't apply. First you must prove that the rule IS broken. What part of "fate worse than death" by an encounter that doesn't give reward did you miss? I and many others have shown countless times, that the rule is in fact broken. You just refuse to admit it. Just because the DM CAN break a rule, doesn't mean the rule is always broken. False. If the DM can use a rule without alteration to ruin a game, then the rule probably IS broken. It's pretty much the contrapositive of the Oberoni fallacy. I really don't believe I have, so don't try to lie to me. I wasn't talking about you and Lielond. The rest of my critics HAVE given me that Sunder Item is a broken rule. The evidence is on this very thread. The two of you are on lonely, lonely ground on this one. -Polaris |
| GawainBS07-23-07, 11:38 AM | I have to admire Polaris standfastness to defend his point of view, which is, by the way, correct. The only "arguments" against it are very specific situations, or willfully misread or misrepresented. |
| Leilond07-23-07, 11:40 AM | Utter balderdash. The fighter can not protect his cloak, his helm, his belt, his gloves, his backpack (and if the backpack is sundered, then all the items with it become unattended, and they may as well have been sundered), etc. It's simply too easy to sunder items in the game. Period. He can. He simply need to make them appear "mundane object" and thus the barbarian has no reason to sunder it. It the barbarian do it, the DM is metagaming. Period Except I've shown that this isn't true. The Sunder Item rule is broken regardless....and a rule can be broken regardless of what the DM does. That's the point behind the Oberoni Fallacy in fact. The sunder rule isn't broken. It works perfectly. You say it is broken because you think it doens't have to work that way, not because there some proof on how it should work It isn't broken, but you don't like it False. Nice try though. If a rule can be used without alteration to make the encounter too deadly and draining, then the rule is broken. Fireball deliver 5d6 damage. If you use a fireball against a 1st level party the encounter is too deadly and draining, thus the fireball is broken This reasoning make all the rules broken Nope. I've pretty much shown it's broken. No, you showed only how you think it should work, how you would like the rule to be. That 10th level barbian has to render the 20th level fighter helpless (as in unconscious or otherwise completely disabled). That isn't a fair comparison at all since a 10th level barbarian can (and should!) sunder as many items as possible before dying. It really is the DnD equivalent of a suicide bombing. If the fighter isn't smart enought to make his items look mundane, but write on everyone of them "I'm magical and I'm helping this fighter to kill you" he deserve to die Yet this was the argument that Lielond was trying to posit. I am not asking the combat rules to follow real world logic. I am asking them to be self-consistant If the sunder item rule isn't self-consistant with the rest of the combat (and sunder) rules (and it's not), then it's a bad rule. Only YOU feel that way. You talk about how you think the rules should work. This doesn't mean that the rule should work that way False. If the DM can use a rule without alteration to ruin a game, then the rule probably IS broken. It's pretty much the contrapositive of the Oberoni fallacy. A DM can use a 5d6 fireball against a 1st level party and make a TPK, thus the fireball rule is broken. Sorry, I don't agree with this reasoning I wasn't talking about you and Lielond. The rest of my critics HAVE given me that Sunder Item is a broken rule. The evidence is on this very thread. I haven't seen any evidence, only your opinion on how the rule should work The two of you are on lonely, lonely ground on this one. 1) I'm talking with you and only with you now, if someone want to point out me something I will replay 2) I don't see this crowd that is supporting your side. It doesn't look like "10 for you and 2 for us". It looks more we're the only still interested in the discussion 3) The fact that 10 think something, and 2 think another thinks, doesn't make the 10s right and the 2s wrong. If you run out of arguments we can stop talking, nono of us changed his mind |
| GawainBS07-23-07, 11:43 AM | He can. He simply need to make them appear "mundane object" and thus the barbarian has no reason to sunder it. It the barbarian do it, the DM is metagaming. Period Not true. It doesn't change the fact that IF the barbarian chooses to sunder it, he can just as easily. |
| Polaris07-23-07, 11:58 AM | He can. He simply need to make them appear "mundane object" and thus the barbarian has no reason to sunder it. It the barbarian do it, the DM is metagaming. Period As Gawain already noted, this is not a defense against Sunder Item no matter how hard you try to make it one. The Barbarian could easily have been told (by the BBEG...i.e. the DM) to sunder everything he can. He could also make the very logical assumption that given the fact he IS facing a high level fighter, any cloak he bothered to wear would be worth sundering. The sunder rule isn't broken. It works perfectly. Sunder Weapon and Sunder Shield generally do work (if not perfectly then well enough). Sunder Item: no. It's broken. You say it is broken because you think it doens't have to work that way, not because there some proof on how it should work It isn't broken, but you don't like it It's broken because an encounter that's ten levels less can too easly impose a fate that's literally worse than death on a high level character. Why? Items are too easy to hit. I've proven this (with numbers no less) over and over and over..... It seems to me that there is no evidence that I can present that will ever change your mind. Fireball deliver 5d6 damage. If you use a fireball against a 1st level party the encounter is too deadly and draining, thus the fireball is broken This reasoning make all the rules broken False. Fireball is a third level spell which makes it an 'encounter' which puts it 4+ above the CR level for a first level party. That generally means insta-kill so the result far from broken, is about what you'd expect. No, you showed only how you think it should work, how you would like the rule to be. No. I've shown that the rule is broken because it allows for too much item breakage from encounters that shouldn't have anywhere close to this impact and I've shown it for the generic case. I've met my burden of proof to show that Sunder Item is a broken rule. If the fighter isn't smart enought to make his items look mundane, but write on everyone of them "I'm magical and I'm helping this fighter to kill you" he deserve to die Making an item look mundane (which may not even be possible with a lot of items) does NOT defend the item. Gawain already explained this to you. Only YOU feel that way. You talk about how you think the rules should work. This doesn't mean that the rule should work that way Actually if you ask around (esp if you ask game designers), I think you will find that MOST people want combat rules to be self-consistant. A DM can use a 5d6 fireball against a 1st level party and make a TPK, thus the fireball rule is broken. Sorry, I don't agree with this reasoning You are using a bad example. A fireball is a third level spell which means it's minimum caster level is 5, i.e. it's a CR 5 type encounter. Of course this will likely TPK a first level party! Nothing broken here. If you throw stuff that is 4+ levels higher, expect TPKs. Again, you are willfully using a very bad example here. I haven't seen any evidence, only your opinion on how the rule should work Tell me than, precisly what sort of evidence would you be willing to accept then? I am flabbergasted at your refusal to admit that the sunder item rule is broken in light of the evidence I've already presented that it is. 1) I'm talking with you and only with you now, if someone want to point out me something I will replay 2) I don't see this crowd that is supporting your side. It doesn't look like "10 for you and 2 for us". It looks more we're the only still interested in the discussion 3) The fact that 10 think something, and 2 think another thinks, doesn't make the 10s right and the 2s wrong. If you run out of arguments we can stop talking, nono of us changed his mind Well, it seems to me that nothing I can say will change you (or JVhad's mind). While it is true that the minority isn't always wrong, when it's 10:2 that Sunder Item is broken, and if I were in the minority like this, I'd seriously reconsider my position. Just saying. -Polaris |
| Leilond07-23-07, 12:18 PM | You are using a bad example. A fireball is a third level spell which means it's minimum caster level is 5, i.e. it's a CR 5 type encounter. Of course this will likely TPK a first level party! Nothing broken here. If you throw stuff that is 4+ levels higher, expect TPKs. Again, you are willfully using a very bad example here. Wrong. A 2nd level bard can do it 60% of the times with a wand, 5 UMD skill points +3 skill focus, +4 charisma modifier, Tell me than, precisly what sort of evidence would you be willing to accept then? I am flabbergasted at your refusal to admit that the sunder item rule is broken in light of the evidence I've already presented that it is. Again. You didn't presented any evidence. You say that a 10th level barbarian have to not be able to sunder an item to a stupid fighter. I do not agree, I think it HAVE to be able to do that I'd seriously reconsider my position. Just saying. I ALWAYS consider my position. I ALWAYS read accurately what people say. But I do not change my mind basing on THE NUMBER, but on what I read I readed only "I think the rule is broken because it let the DM make that think", but I think that "it is perfectly right to make that think possible" I change my mind with arguments that make me change my mind, not with "number" |
| GawainBS07-23-07, 12:23 PM | Wrong. A 2nd level bard can do it 60% of the times with a wand, 5 UMD skill points +3 skill focus, +4 charisma modifier, Consider also that that bard has limited resources, or else he becomes a higher CR. If you want to think of specific examples that can do such things like 5d6 for a CR 2, well, there are some, but I don't think that's the spirit of it. Again. You didn't presented any evidence. You say that a 10th level barbarian have to not be able to sunder an item to a stupid fighter. I do not agree, I think it HAVE to be able to do that He actually wrote it out, with worked out stats... Seems pretty solid evidence to me. Be serious though: you don't have the skill to even scratch someone so many levels higher, but you have the skill to pinpoint and attack without failing something as small as a ring, which is on the hand, on of the bodyparts that hardly stand still in a fight? |
| Leilond07-23-07, 12:28 PM | He actually wrote it out, with worked out stats... Seems pretty solid evidence to me. Be serious though: you don't have the skill to even scratch someone so many levels higher, but you have the skill to pinpoint and attack without failing something as small as a ring, which is on the hand, on of the bodyparts that hardly stand still in a fight? If the fighter is so stupid to put a neon signal on his magic ring instead of putting it under the armor gauntlet, he deserves to have the ring sundered. I feel perfectly confortable with that, and I think that not using the rule that way means you don't ask your players to pay attention to their possession Pheraps the "size rules" are broken, because it doesn't cover the 1/5 of inches dimention (I will say +16 to AC) Thus I can accept that is too easy to hit a ring, but not a backpack. Thus I will be with you to add another size modifier for "smaller than fine" for "less than 1 inches" creatures/objects (+16 AC, -32 to grapple, +32 hide check) Thus I think the sunder objects rule is well designed, for all objects except those very small that lack of a smaller size modifier. I can agree on this |
| Polaris07-23-07, 12:34 PM | Wrong. A 2nd level bard can do it 60% of the times with a wand, 5 UMD skill points +3 skill focus, +4 charisma modifier, Said wand costs 11,250 gold which by itself is twelve and a half times more treasure than a 2nd level bard is supposed to have (and that's assuming it's a PC grade bard....if he's an NPC grade bard this is even greater). That's before you add in for armor, weapons, other gear ect. I rather suspect that a bard (or any character) with thirteen times normal wealth is going to be a higher CR than his listed level....say about three levels higher....which means this bard is really CR 5 and my point remains solid. Again. You didn't presented any evidence. You say that a 10th level barbarian have to not be able to sunder an item to a stupid fighter. I do not agree, I think it HAVE to be able to do that I have provided examples, rules quotes, and even crunched the numbers. What more evidence do you need?? (This applies to JVhad as well). More to the point, if you don't think I have presented evidence, then what sort of evidence are you willing to accept??? Near as I can tell, you (and JVhad) aren't willing to accept any evidence that opposes your view, and if that's true then further discussion is pointless. -Polaris |
| rironin07-23-07, 12:41 PM | If the fighter is so stupid to put a neon signal on his magic ring instead of putting it under the armor gauntlet, he deserves to have the ring sundered. I feel perfectly confortable with that, and I think that not using the rule that way means you don't ask your players to pay attention to their possession Pheraps the "size rules" are broken, because it doesn't cover the 1/5 of inches dimention (I will say +16 to AC) Thus I can accept that is too easy to hit a ring, but not a backpack. Thus I will be with you to add another size modifier for "smaller than fine" for "less than 1 inches" creatures/objects (+16 AC, -32 to grapple, +32 hide check)I'm going to have to call shenanigans here in the spirit of D&D itself. Are you honestly saying that all 20th level characters must disguise all of their legendary, near-artifact power items at all times? Do all the 20th level characters in your game world walk around magicked up to look like beggars, in order to avoid losing their equipment to otherwise powerless mooks? You've accepted Polaris's argument that sundering items is really easy, but you're saying, effectively, that any 20th level PC who walks around with something shiny effectively deserves to have his equipment cut up by foes so weak they don't stand a chance of scratching him. Do you really, honestly play this way? Because most people who play epic heroes in Dungeons & Dragons like to think they look cool. That isn't just my opinion - look at the Magic Item Compendium, or any other sourcebook with illustrations of magic items. They're pretty damn conspicuous! And you can't just tuck them all under your armor gauntlet. Most PCs don't consider a veil of secrecy necessary or desirable. I'd be a little surprised if you actually played like this; it sounds more like you're claiming to for the sake of argument. |
| Leilond07-23-07, 12:41 PM | I have provided examples, rules quotes, and even crunched the numbers. What more evidence do you need?? (This applies to JVhad as well). Examples that I think are perfectly within the game intention and are good as they are. Rules that you didn't proved they're broken, only that you think should work differently I think you did good talk, but nothing about demostrating nothing More to the point, if you don't think I have presented evidence, then what sort of evidence are you willing to accept??? You have to show me, not me to tell you I think there cannot be evidence, because I think the rules isn't broken. How can I give you an evidence of a rule to be broken if I think it isn't? How can I tell you which is the evidence if I think that no evidence exist? The only evidence I could think is an errata from the wizard. I don't think they will produce one, because they think the rule is ok, like me Near as I can tell, you (and JVhad) aren't willing to accept any evidence that opposes your view, and if that's true then further discussion is pointless. -Polaris You clam opinions as evidence. If your opinions are "evidence", well I'm not willing to accept those type of evidence. I think that "evidence" is something that do not depends on your idea on how should the rule work. |
| Polaris07-23-07, 12:54 PM | Examples that I think are perfectly within the game intention and are good as they are. Rules that you didn't proved they're broken, only that you think should work differently I think you did good talk, but nothing about demostrating nothing Huh? I quoted the rule. I showed that the rule was inconsistant not only with the rest of the DnD combat system, but also with the standard rules for Sundering (weapons and shield). I showed using numbers that it was far too easy to hit items. Others (like JTalbain) showed that this had an extremely undesirable effect on the level/wealth/cr progession in the game, and THEN I showed using the most generic example how a barbarian ten levels less than a 20th level fighter wouldn't even be able to hit the fighter (except by sheer luck) but could automatically sunder any item that fighter was wearing. What more evidence do you need? What more evidence are you looking for? Is there any evidence you will accept? You have to show me, not me to tell you And I have shown you. I think there cannot be evidence, because I think the rules isn't broken. How can I give you an evidence of a rule to be broken if I think it isn't? How can I tell you which is the evidence if I think that no evidence exist? You can tell me what sort of evidence you are looking for that might change you mind. If you can't tell me that, then you're close-minded on this issue and further discussion is pointless. The only evidence I could think is an errata from the wizard. I don't think they will produce one, because they think the rule is ok, like me Huh? So you only think that a rule is broken after wizards releases an admission that a rule is broken? Then further discussion is pointless. There are plenty of broken/bent rules in the game that haven't been errataed. You clam opinions as evidence. If your opinions are "evidence", well I'm not willing to accept those type of evidence. I think that "evidence" is something that do not depends on your idea on how should the rule work. I have SHOWN numerical and mathematic evidence that the Sunder Item rule doesn't work (because if it did, then it wouldn't foul up the wealth/cr/level progression) and it doesn't work because items are too easy to hit (and I've proven that mathematicaly as well). The ease with which items are hit is not subject to opinion. -Polaris |
| GawainBS07-23-07, 12:55 PM | Examples that I think are perfectly within the game intention and are good as they are. Rules that you didn't proved they're broken, only that you think should work differently I think you did good talk, but nothing about demostrating nothing You have to show me, not me to tell you I think there cannot be evidence, because I think the rules isn't broken. How can I give you an evidence of a rule to be broken if I think it isn't? How can I tell you which is the evidence if I think that no evidence exist? The only evidence I could think is an errata from the wizard. I don't think they will produce one, because they think the rule is ok, like me You clam opinions as evidence. If your opinions are "evidence", well I'm not willing to accept those type of evidence. I think that "evidence" is something that do not depends on your idea on how should the rule work. Please... He set up an encounter with regular equipment and explained what happened. He even explained what happened on every roll of the dice. Harder than that evidence won't get in D&D. |
| Leilond07-23-07, 01:04 PM | Huh? I quoted the rule. I showed that the rule was inconsistant not only with the rest of the DnD combat system, but also with the standard rules for Sundering (weapons and shield). I showed using numbers that it was far too easy to hit items. Others (like JTalbain) showed that this had an extremely undesirable effect on the level/wealth/cr progession in the game, and THEN I showed using the most generic example how a barbarian ten levels less than a 20th level fighter wouldn't even be able to hit the fighter (except by sheer luck) but could automatically sunder any item that fighter was wearing. You didn't proved nothing. You only said how you think they should work I think that a 10th level barbarian is perfectly entitled to break your backpack if you give him any reason to do that. There's nothing wrong with that You say "it shouldn't be like that" I reply, it should And I have shown you. You shown an opinion on how you suppose the rules should work You can tell me what sort of evidence you are looking for that might change you mind. If you can't tell me that, then you're close-minded on this issue and further discussion is pointless Again. I think no evidence exist! How can I think about somethink that I think it doesn't exist? Huh? So you only think that a rule is broken after wizards releases an admission that a rule is broken? Then further discussion is pointless. There are plenty of broken/bent rules in the game that haven't been errataed. It was an example. I repeat. I cannot think about an evidence because I think the rule isn't broken thus I think no evidence exists I have SHOWN numerical and mathematic evidence that the Sunder Item rule doesn't work (because if it did, then it wouldn't foul up the wealth/cr/level progression) and it doesn't work because items are too easy to hit (and I've proven that mathematicaly as well). The ease with which items are hit is not subject to opinion. A 1st level barbarian can kill a 20th level fighter. How? If the fighter go to sleep without being sure he cannot be surprised, the barbarian with his great axe will "coupe de grace him" for 3d12+12 damge (no rage), for an average 31-32 damage. The fighter now need to make a DC 41-42 fortitude save, that can be easly failed Thus, if an high level character is stupid, it die If an high level character do not hide his fragile items he deserve to see them broken by a first level fighter I can accept that "rings" and object small like that are too easy to be hit. This is a problem of the "size modifiers" that cover 6 inches or smaller like the smallest possible object I can accept that the "size rules" need to add a "smaller than fine" creature for a +16 AC, -32 grapple, +32 hide The rest of object that are 3 inches or bigger are perfectly covered by the rules as they have to be |
| Sunic_Flames07-23-07, 01:15 PM | ...Wow. Just wow. This is one of those cases where logic and reason simply fails, and you might as well be doing this: :banghead: Polaris, and anyone else on the same page, I salute you for sticking to your guns, and I agree that sundering items is highly illogical and broken, as encounters 10 levels lower than you should be entirely trivial, not capable of doing more harm than being killed would... which is precisely what happens when that 25,001 gp+ item gets broken on a natural 2. Personally I think sundering in general is an illogical tactic that serves no purpose except for a DM to screw players, but I digress. Sundering is in the same classification as rust monsters, ethereal filchers, and so on. A metagame tool for correcting some real or imagined wrong of the players, but serving no real in game purpose. The line of thinking? Probably something like this: "Oh noes! My players have too much treasure/won't follow my plot hooks/didn't save me enough pizza! I'll show them! Yes... my precious... make them pay..." *rubs hands together and :evillaughs manically* :rolleyes: |
| Polaris07-23-07, 01:45 PM | You didn't proved nothing. You only said how you think they should work I think that a 10th level barbarian is perfectly entitled to break your backpack if you give him any reason to do that. There's nothing wrong with that You say "it shouldn't be like that" I reply, it should If you think a barbarian ten levels lower should be able to inflict a punishment worse than death on a fighter ten levels higher on any roll except a natural one, then I can't help you. I think almost any reasonable person with any reasonable DnD experience would say that there is plenty wrong with this scenario. You shown an opinion on how you suppose the rules should work Only in so far as all arguments are opinions. What I have shown is that the Sunder Item is inconsistant with how wotc thinks the game should be run as evidenced by the CR tables and the wealth/level/cr progression charts. Again. I think no evidence exist! How can I think about somethink that I think it doesn't exist? Come on. If you can not asnswer this basic question: What sort of evidence would you be willing to accept? Then your mind is completely closed to the question. I am not asking to your produce such evidence. I am within my rights to demand that you provide some way to change your mind. If not, then you have no standing in the discussion because your mind can not be changed. It was an example. I repeat. I cannot think about an evidence because I think the rule isn't broken thus I think no evidence exists Doesn't matter whether you think such evidence exists. You need to provide me with at least some reasonable way of being able to convince you that you might be mistaken. All you have to do is provide some criteria for the sort of evidence (whether it exists or not) that you'd be willing to accept as valid. You (and JVhad) have consistantly failed to do this. A 1st level barbarian can kill a 20th level fighter. How? If the fighter go to sleep without being sure he cannot be surprised, the barbarian with his great axe will "coupe de grace him" for 3d12+12 damge (no rage), for an average 31-32 damage. The fighter now need to make a DC 41-42 fortitude save, that can be easly failed Thus, if an high level character is stupid, it die If an high level character do not hide his fragile items he deserve to see them broken by a first level fighter How common is this, really? In the first place there are tons of trivial ways that a 20th level character can avoid being suprised, and that's assuming that the barbarian can even make the repeated move-silently rolls to approach the sleeping 20th level character. You are deliberately trying to come up with the most bizzare circumstance possible....and then trying to call that broken. I am doing the opposite. I have kept my examples deliberately generic. A GENERIC barbarian ten levels less than a 20th level fighter will pretty much ALWAYS be able to sunder ANY item on that fighter (except on a natural one of course) in pretty much ANY generic encounter. That's what makes the rule broken. The rest of object that are 3 inches or bigger are perfectly covered by the rules as they have to be I have proven otherwise. You simply refuse to accept the evidence. -Polaris |
| rironin07-23-07, 02:31 PM | A 1st level barbarian can kill a 20th level fighter. How? If the fighter go to sleep without being sure he cannot be surprised, the barbarian with his great axe will "coupe de grace him" for 3d12+12 damge (no rage), for an average 31-32 damage. The fighter now need to make a DC 41-42 fortitude save, that can be easly failed Thus, if an high level character is stupid, it die If an high level character do not hide his fragile items he deserve to see them broken by a first level fighterYes, that's true. This is one reason that when a party of adventurers is sleeping in some dangerous area, they sleep in shifts and always have someone on watch. A party of 20th level adventurers has items, spells, and watchful companions constantly scanning the surrounding countryside for threats of every kind. Adventurers invest in protective measures like these because being attacked in the night is a serious threat when they're out in the wild or in a dangerous dungeon. Virtually no one invests heavily in "magic item disguise kits" to make themselves look inconspicuous because, as Polaris pointed out, nearly all gamer groups hardly ever use the Sunder Item rules because they present too much of a problem. If the Sunder Item rules really were legit and balanced, as you say, then everyone would have to invest in that kind of protection (i.e., random illusory magic to disguise their items). On a sidenote, attacking people in their sleep is something that a DM also has to tread carefully with. If said 20th level fighter were relaxing in an inn, with no enemies nearby and absolutley no reason to think that anyone wished him harm, then the player would be pretty angry at their DM if that 1st level barbarian came in and killed him in his sleep. It doesn't matter if it's possible. PCs with no reason to suspect they're in any danger whatsoever kind of have to act like they're in no danger whatsoever. Taking paranoid precautions is metagaming (unless the PC is paranoid), and having random assassins descend from nowhere to strike at the non-metagaming PCs is a bad call by the DM, unless he has good reason to kill off one PC, or has somehow planned the encounter so that it's winnable. |
| Sunic_Flames07-23-07, 02:45 PM | This brings up an interesting point. Why is the level 1 barbarian even able to approach the level 20 fighter at all? Whatever happened to things like Magnificent Mansion, or hell even Rope Trick? He is traveling with a wizard, right? Though these aren't meant as defenses against the level 1 barbarian who plans on CdGing his way to godhood in a hurry (or at least level 2.99), but defenses against the scry and die tactics and the like employed by high level enemy spellcasters. |
| Pentar07-23-07, 03:04 PM | Examples that I think are perfectly within the game intention and are good as they are. Rules that you didn't proved they're broken, only that you think should work differently Look, Leilond... While I understand your desire you bash heads with Polaris - I honestly think he's got you on this one. Your view that a bad DM, "meta-gaming" to sunder an item is the only way Sunder is broken, then Sunder is broken, because it allows the DM to do it. My argument is that it is irrelevant. A DM willing to do that wouldn't be limited to just being bad because of it... he'd be bad regardless of the Sunder rules, because of his attitude towards DMing in general - not because he used Sunder. He could just as easily use Rust Ray, Rust Monsters, and any number of devastating weapons/spells/monsters that destroy equipment with impunity (Oozes come to mind as well). The fact of the matter is, if a Level 1 Fighter can walk up to a Level 20 Mage and "surprise round" him to Sunder his Staff of Magius and all the Mage can do is say, "Well son of a...", then Sunder is broken. Its relevance in game is moot, because a good DM won't let that happen and a bad DM isn't worth playing with even if they don't happen to use the Sunder rules in that way. On the other hand, Polaris, a DM metagaming isn't a bad thing. It's the only way to DM properly. Suggesting otherwise is to indicate that you're more of a computer generating randomized campaigns than you are a human being, designing an adventure for your friends. |
| Zilvar07-23-07, 03:18 PM | Right, they shouldn't have to. It's common sense that what the enemy doesn't know the enemy doesn't know. Rings and amulets don't magically display shoot here in neon signs by the heroes.Well...I'm not actually sure about rings and amulets specifically, and I haven't finished reading the MiC yet, but that book makes it absolutely crystal clear that every magical item is distinctive and obviously non-mundane. They might not all glow and/or make you shoot lightning-bolts out of your ass, but they're not plain, unornamented pieces of boring crap. So...umm. Really, I have to side with Polaris on this small piece of this rather silly argument. There isn't anything a player can do to protect the majority of his gear from someone who wants to sunder it. Trying to argue that RP considerations balance a mechanical rule has been demonstrated to be an unsound practice on forums since time immemorial. |
| Spikes01k07-23-07, 05:06 PM | I don't understand why a DM would make many NPCs sunder things. They typically desire loot just as much as the PCs. GMs can be unfair bastards that don't play by logic. I once had a character knockout and stabilized, they went 40ft out of their way with out even making a spot roll to notice I was still alive among the other bodies just so that he could cleave from my unconscious self and attack some one for free. |