Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hurin 06-11-04, 02:06 PM	Hey All, My DM ruled last session that my 7th level barbarian's adamantite greatsword would not ignore the hardness of magical weaponry unless the enhancement bonus of my weapon was equal to or greater than target weapon. (My weapon is not magical.) So for example I attempted to sunder a +2 longsword and did not benefit from the adamantites quality of ignoring the first 20 points of hardness. Does this seem reasonable? Now that I've taken the Combat Brute feat and entered into the Frenzied Berserker prestige class it's plainly obvious he's gonna be a sunder monster. My DM doesn't think it mechanically sound that a 3000GP adamantite weapon should be able to shatter a 25'000GP magical weapon. I've searched high and low on the boards but was unable to find any relevant discussions. Regards,
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-04, 02:13 PM	If he isnt worried about the frenzied beserker I dont see why he should be worried about a little thing like you attacking weapons ;) Remember though, in 3.5 each + gives the weapon +2 hardness and +10 hp.. so with that +2 that is 4 extra points of hardness and +20 hp. It may very well be that it takes you two attacks to get through it, and eventualy weapons will have high enough hardness (whether through material, magic, or both) to simply ignore the special property of adamantine. As for whether or not it is too much, I dont know, I have yet to see it happen in a game. Hopefuly someone else has actual experience ;)
Hblast 06-11-04, 02:15 PM	be happy he allows you to attack them at ALL IIRC you cannot sunder any weapon/shield/armor unless your weapon has an equal or superior enchantment (equal or higher +#)
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-04, 02:19 PM	the phb and dmg are in conflict, the faq states that it is no longer the case that you need an equal or higher plus to damage the weapon. What they did change was to give weapons more hardness and hp for the + instead.
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-04, 02:19 PM	This fixes things like, 'but how can the wall destroy my weapon? it doesnt have a higher plus!'
Hurin 06-11-04, 02:33 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard If he isnt worried about the frenzied beserker I dont see why he should be worried about a little thing like you attacking weapons ;) Now that's an understatement! Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Remember though, in 3.5 each + gives the weapon +2 hardness and +10 hp.. so with that +2 that is 4 extra points of hardness and +20 hp. It may very well be that it takes you two attacks to get through it, and eventualy weapons will have high enough hardness (whether through material, magic, or both) to simply ignore the special property of adamantine. As for whether or not it is too much, I dont know, I have yet to see it happen in a game. The session before last a troublesome (invisible and very buffed) fighter had to be dealt with in a less than diplomatic fashion. It took three full attacks to blast through his +1 large steel shield. I recall I was hammering him with 2d6 +13 points of damage per attack. The 1st two attacks did the bulk of the damage and the DM described his shield before the final attack as "... the bulk of the shield was laying in shards around him, and what was left in his hand was rent and broken..." Originally posted by Hblast be happy he allows you to attack them at ALL IIRC you cannot sunder any weapon/shield/armor unless your weapon has an equal or superior enchantment (equal or higher +#) Hrmm ... that seems unreasonable, why would he want to disqualify a character feat like that? Your DM should include the prerequisite for the Sunder attack action or Improved Sunder feat to include "Must possess a magical weapon." Else why take the feat if it is dependant upon your gear?
Hurin 06-11-04, 02:38 PM	Ah Scion, you da man I completely forgot about the faq, I'll snag it right now. Thanks again!
MrkGrismer 06-11-04, 02:46 PM	Yep, if the DM wants you to not be able to sunder his weapons he needs to either make them adamantium (20 hardness) or mithral (15 hardness) and/or +5 (+10 hardness). Otherwise he should not have allowed you to have an adamantium weapon. Of course, watch out when he comes after you with a Huge creature that has Improved Sunder and a +5 adamantium greatsword. (ouch!)
Thorak 06-11-04, 03:09 PM	Besides, considering getting any magical weapon made out of adamantine instead of steel costs a mere ~2700gp, it's pretty silly to get anything more than a +2 weapon made that isn't made from adamantine. A +3 weapon costs about 18,500 gp. Pumping that to about 21,000-21,500 gp means it's adamantine. Not a huge jump. And for that minor cost, it's much tougher, and ignores hardnesses less than 20, all in addition to it's magical abilities. Cause if it ain't adamantine, any goofball with 3k to burn can sunder your massively expensive weapon into oblivion. Such a small cost, for such a great benefit. Even if I weren't letting my PCs get weapons made to their specifications, as a DM I'd say that most weapons over a +5 enchantment would be adamantine, simply because the cost for the material is so insignificant compared to the cost of the enchantment, you'd be silly not to. Imagine buying an expensive sports car because you like to be the fastest car on the road. You're dropping $80,000+ on it. And the dealer says that, unless you pay an extra $3k, anyone who's willing to dump the same amount into their 20-year old beater will be able to drive faster than you. You'll pay the extra $3,000. It's not that magical weapons should be harder than adamantine. It's that, really, any powerful magical weapon should be made from adamantine in the first place.
Hurin 06-11-04, 03:15 PM	Thorak, MrkGrismer, Both very valid points you've made. As for the huge creature with an adamantite +5 greatsword after my Frenzied Berserker hits him the first time if it ain't whimpering it is likely too stupid to realize ... it's already dead! :smirk:
denomicon 06-11-04, 03:21 PM	I was just looking through the SRD for more info about the enhancement bonus to hardness, and I found this: From SRD You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. Say whaaaa? I had never noticed that before, I thought that this would be a viable tactic against the Tank BBEG, I guess not so much.
Ipsissimus 06-11-04, 03:41 PM	Check the DMG, and the FAQ Weapons of special materials such as Adamantite cost an additional amount everytime they are enchanted. So an adamantite weapon would normally be 3000 gp +, a +1 admanatite weapon would be +2000 gp (magic) (roughly 5000 gp), getting it to +2 (magic) would cost the standard for +2 magic weapon and an additional 3000 gp for the admantite property. This way it's not cheap to run around with a weapon that simply breaks all others with only a +3000 gp price. This goes with cold iron and silver as well, but the latter being much cheaper. With that said, is a +5 adamantite greatsword within the limits of the character's/monster's CR and character wealth? For balance and fun factor purposes of course. As for sundering armor, the bebelith is notorious for that.
Beamup 06-11-04, 03:43 PM	Only Cold Iron costs money every time it is enchanted. The costs listed for, e.g. adamantite, are the cost of the nonmagical item of that material.
Thorak 06-11-04, 03:44 PM	Originally posted by denomicon I was just looking through the SRD for more info about the enhancement bonus to hardness, and I found this: Say whaaaa? I had never noticed that before, I thought that this would be a viable tactic against the Tank BBEG, I guess not so much. Makes perfect sense though. That's what armor does. It gets hit. Repeatedly and often. It's designed to not break under that kind of pressure. However, armour did break, and it's not well represented in the game. A decent system would be to have some damage dealt to the armor on critical hits; those are the ones penetrating, so it's likely they're doing damage to the armor in the process.
tarkin 06-11-04, 03:57 PM	After a ceratin level, all armor should be Adamantine or Mithral for weight. However, there is good reason to get an Alchemical Silver or Cold Iron weapon at high levels. ------------------------ That said, I would let any idiot that want's to Sunder their opponent's weapons who is not a Forsaker type, to do so at will. Then I would remind the players how much treasure he destroyed. Then I would point out that he could have built a Disarm and Snatch Weapon instead of Sunder character. Then I would encourage the rest of the party o insist that the Sundering idiot's treasure share included the value of the weapon he destroyed.
eudas 06-11-04, 04:39 PM	that's silly meta-gaming. it's not your treasure until you can take it. if it gets broken in the process, well, it wasn't yours to begin with, so who cares? if your character wants to talk to mine in-game afterwards and say "dammit, you *******, we coulda used that!", then that's fine... but just automatically assuming that "Anything On An NPC = Treasure for PC's" is lame. eudas
Hurin 06-11-04, 04:41 PM	Originally posted by tarkin That said, I would let any idiot that want's to Sunder their opponent's weapons who is not a Forsaker type, to do so at will. Nice approach to constructive criticism you've got. :rolleyes: Originally posted by tarkin Then I would remind the players how much treasure he destroyed. To what end? Originally posted by tarkin Then I would point out that he could have built a Disarm and Snatch Weapon instead of Sunder character. And if the player did not want to build a character based on the Disarm tactic? Or if the campaign world did not support a character concept like this, what then? Originally posted by tarkin Then I would encourage the rest of the party to insist that the Sundering idiot's treasure share included the value of the weapon he destroyed. Uh huh, and the very reason of the Sundering idiot's action? The cause for sundering seems lost entirely in your logic tarkin! As the lead tank in the group it was an easy decision to make-to rid the enemy fighter of his fancy magical gear. Sundering is not something you do all of the time or even some of the time, it's a combat action you use as an equializer when the party is in trouble. And man were we in trouble!
MrkGrismer 06-11-04, 06:08 PM	Originally posted by Ipsissimus As for sundering armor, the bebelith is notorious for that. Rend, not sunder.
Hblast 06-11-04, 06:10 PM	Complete Warrior... there's a feat in there for Sundering Armor
Hurin 06-11-04, 07:28 PM	Originally posted by Hblast Complete Warrior... there's a feat in there for Sundering Armor There is? What's it called?
Edward 06-12-04, 01:28 AM	This is the same problem I have withe people saying that mords is to powerful because it takes away your opponents magical gear. By destroying his weapon you make it easier for you to win but you deny yourself the ability to claim that sword when you are finished the fight. He should however remember to arm all weapon dependant bad guys with 2 or 3 sets of spare weapons. PCs always carry a weapon made of this and another made of that and enemy that could afford a 25000gp sword can afford a silver dagger, an adamantine mace and a cold iron headed spear. Of cause primary spell casters wouldn’t carry this around but they don’t spend a large portion of there wealth on martial weapons. Also if you have a spare adamantine weapon you change to it as soon as your opponent starts trying to sunder your weapon, especially if your opponent is welding adamantine. NPCs can and should use all the tactics PCs can Eudas thinks that it isn’t your tressure until you win but for most PCs it will be. You need to make an in character decision. Do I want do destroy it and win easily or be able to pick it up after the fight. The GM should not give extra tressure because the party keeps destroying potential tressure so the party may end up under equipped. As to sundering armour I seem to recall somebody telling be that English broadswords where built heavy and blunt the better to smash the heavy armour off your opponent so you can actually harm him. Now you need a feat from a semi cor book to do the default way of dealing with medieval armour. I give up. Edward
Tehril 06-12-04, 05:19 PM	I also play in Hurins group. In over 2 years and 3 campaigns, his and my adamantium weapons (purchased on character creation) are the only adamantium weapons ...or items period... to appear in the game. This lends me to believe adamant is extremely rare. It also leads me to believe that you can't just go purchase it anywhere. So hordes of enemies suddenly wielding adamantium would be a tad suspicious. 1 enemy would not. The DM using a big stick to "stick it to the PC's" would not go over well in our group... and our DM isn't particularily inclined to that sort of behavoir anyways. For a player character to spend that starting gold on an adamantium weapon (starting at 5th or 6th level...3K is huge), plus all the feats to make it really usefully... why should the player be penalized? The problem is that the DM made this ruling in game, at the moment Hurin attempted his sundering dream. Now, I don't view sundering as broken at all. The DM should NEVER adjust the reward amount to take into consideration a sundered weapon. Weapons "can" be fixed, after all... just with added costs :) The problem here is that a player went from having lots of fun to having a lot less fun... because what he had spent so much on was now about half as useful as before. If the DM wanted to change how adamantium worked, he should've done it before Hurin made his character... not in the middle of a battle. My character has been around for a long time and has wielded an adamantium great axe for just as long... while I am not a sunder monster, the adamantium issue should've been worked out a long time ago. The current fix the DM has made up is that you need a magical enhancement or "+" equal to or higher than the item attacked in order to ignore the hardness of the item. You can still sunder it, but not as effectively. I'm on the fence as to what is happening. Part of me agrees witht he DM, while part of me sees the ruling as heavy handed and a little short sighted :(