Post/Author/DateTime	Post
danielinthewolvesden 07-12-07, 10:41 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?
Kopana 07-12-07, 11:00 PM	Since when were there even rules for sundering nonweapons?
olshanski_home 07-12-07, 11:07 PM	Since when were there even rules for sundering nonweapons? I think its in one of those really obscure splatbooks that nobody ever uses... Oh, yeah, here it is. I found it. Its in the Players Handbook on page 158. Its under "Sunder" in "Chapter 8:Combat".
archerpwr 07-12-07, 11:13 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? Hide your magical equipment in the bag of holding that is underneath your 50 cloaks. Make your weapon out of that crazy healing metal from BoED.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-12-07, 11:23 PM	Your DM is just having creatures cut and bash your stuff in every encounter? Are the creatures seeming to do it at the expense of actually, you know, fighting you? Is it maybe a concerted effort by a group of creatures? It's a stretch, but I could argue the validity of hacking a quiver, but a backpack? That'd just complicate and slow the game... What I'm getting at is if the DM has a purpose, or their just trashing your characters' things - if the latter, that wouldn't make for a very engaging game; think if that was a movie (well, maybe a comedy).
Krusk 07-12-07, 11:40 PM	play a vop monk and or druid?
albinomonkeyking 07-13-07, 12:47 AM	If it is one-handed and 20 pounds or under you could drop the 10k for a glove of storing. It is a free action to retrieve or store the weapon. Combat would go like this. "I retrieve my sword, take a full attack action, then store my sword."
High Octane 07-13-07, 12:54 AM	Question your DM on the NPCs actions. In fact, REALLY **** off your DM and when one sunders and becomes an easy kill, use non-lethal damage and knock them out, tie them up, and then ask them "Why were you attacking my backpack?" Then watch the DM try to come up with some explanation. Also, get a +1 adamantine weapon. Watch them try to beat THAT hardness.
yellowdingo 07-13-07, 01:07 AM	Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement Effect: -7 points of strength, no save. Takes out strength supported feats like power attack and the various feats it supports in turn. A 20th level fighter with Sunder vanishes at the hands of a low level sorcerer with weapon focus (ray) and weapon finesse (ray).
High Octane 07-13-07, 01:09 AM	Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement Effect: -7 points of strength, no save. Takes out strength supported feats like power attack and the various feats it supports in turn. A 20th level fighter with Sunder vanishes at the hands of a low level sorcerer with weapon focus (ray) and weapon finesse (ray). Why, or rather HOW could you take weapon finesse (ray)? Do you mean weapon specialization? In that case the damage doesnt increase.
yellowdingo 07-13-07, 01:16 AM	Why, or rather HOW could you take weapon finesse (ray)? Do you mean weapon specialization? In that case the damage doesnt increase. The purpose of a Sorcerer taking Weapon finesse (ray) is that it adds his/her dexterity bonuses to the Attackbonuses when they roll to hit with the enfeeblement ray spell. With Enfeeblement Ray the Damage is: -(1d6+1 Points of Strength).
High Octane 07-13-07, 01:26 AM	The purpose of a Sorcerer taking Weapon finesse (ray) is that it adds his/her dexterity bonuses to the Attackbonuses when they roll to hit with the enfeeblement ray spell. With Enfeeblement Ray the Damage is: -(1d6+1 Points of Strength). You do that anyway, its a ranged attack!
yellowdingo 07-13-07, 02:14 AM	You do that anyway, its a ranged attack! Apparently not. The only one in a ray attack who gets to use their dex bonus is the victim. Just re-read the DMG and PHB on Rays and Ranged Touch Combat to be sure. The only reference to dex anywhere is a description of mialee getting a dex bonus to avoid a ray. So the only place left to get a DEX bonus on your to hit roll with a ray must be found in WeaponFinesse(RAY). Rules is rules... So after a blind roll to hit (with no dex bonus that doesnt come from weapon finesse) the maximized enfeeblement ray cast as a 4th level spell cuts through armor and shield, and natural armor as though they were not there. The victim gets a dex bonus only or a spell resistance (to avoid utterly). So down goes the 20th level fighter. Multiple rays and he will be twitching on the ground. A quickened&maximized wand of enfeeblement and your sorcerer could take down some STRENGTH(45) bozo with 6 magic item uses in a single combat round (apparently a free action is a yell for help and a round is anything you can do in six seconds...) so whamo, whamo, whamo, whamo, whamo, whamo with a whose-my-biyatch wand fits in a single round.
Ardras 07-13-07, 03:34 AM	I'm not really sure somebody here has read the rules...all the Ray spells are ranged touch attacks, or, in some minor cases, ranged attacks. So, now going to the Chapter in the PHB where Attack Bonus is explained it reads : ... Attack Bonus Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is: Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty ... I'd count a Ray as a ranged weapon personally, so no need for Weapon Finesse (If you got a Problem with a Ray counting as a Weapon, read Complete Arcane under Weapon-like Spells).
Leilond 07-13-07, 04:38 AM	Ranged touch attack are "ranged attacks" that need to hit the touch AC They follow ALL the rules for ranged attacks - Dex bonus to hit roll - Penalty of -4 to hit melee - Chance to hit friends in a grapple And so on Weapon finesse (ray) is totally unusefull If your caster like ray so much, you'll aim to - Point blank shot - Precise shot - Improved precise shot - Weapon focus (ray) Going back to the original point I will surely go to my DM and ask him why he's doing that: - Are you having fun? We don't - Does it sound logical to that ALL monster hit backpacs? It doesn't to us
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-13-07, 09:55 AM	Is that a fact, or is it indeed a clever ruse?
Phrennzy 07-13-07, 12:07 PM	Since when were there even rules for sundering nonweapons? Sundering a Carried or Worn Object You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. Please make sure that you ask for your attacks of opportunity against the sunderers, which you should get unless they have Improved Sunder. As a DM, I have sundered one time only. The PCs were up against a Hill Giant cleric of massive power. The PC cleric is the group tank, and just had a wizard craft him a Lion's Shield - he hadn't had a chance to use it yet either. To demonstrate the Hill Giant's power, I had the giant sunder the shield. Took two hits and it was gone. The HG got 3 attacks each round. The third hit landed (easily) on the cleric and did a lot of damage. I was trying to persuade the group to leave, LOL. They didn't, round 2 the shieldless cleric was dead. The cleric still complains about losing the shield. I can't imagine sundering items all the time. That's just mean, and from the monster point of view, with the exception of shilelds and weapons/wands/staff, kinda stupid.
Everdreaming 07-13-07, 12:15 PM	Sundering from a monsters point of view is kind of stupid, cause remember, they think that if they beat you, they get to loot you dead bodies. So why break stuff that they will get to loot?
Kitaki 07-13-07, 01:59 PM	VoP Monk
wonlee76 07-13-07, 02:11 PM	Hmmm... generally as a DM I rarely use sunder since most intelligent enemies would not use it. The few exceptions where I might use it is against an archer (since archers typically don't threaten and if I'm in melee with them no AoO sunder attempt on a stick) or if its an low intelligence (ie. some kind of creature not concerned about wealth or loot) enemy that specifically is designed to sunder (Hook Horror in MM II for example). To counter Sunder: Get as many damned +s on your weapon to avoid losing that at least (+2 hardness, +10 hp per +). Portable hole for a storage container. Keep portable hole under your hat or something protecting it from being sundered. Gloves of storing for weapons when you're not wielding it. Adamantite weapons or darkwood weapons to increase the base hardness of your weapon. Exotic materials for more mundane items (pouches, backpacks, etc.) to try to increase the hardness and hp of the equipment if you can convince your DM to do so. Focus on strength reducing abilities to diminish the chances of a sunder (by possibly causing enemy to get a lower strength score than 13 so that they can't use improved sunder) and to lower damage caused on a successful sunder attempt.
danielinthewolvesden 07-13-07, 02:19 PM	To counter Sunder: Get as many damned +s on your weapon to avoid losing that at least (+2 hardness, +10 hp per +). This is now outdated, that is only for armour not weapons, See the new Magic item book for how it now works
wonlee76 07-13-07, 02:22 PM	This is now outdated, that is only for armour not weapons, See the new Magic item book for how it now works They errata'd the errata in the MIC? Geez... I never noticed it... guess I got something to look up when I get the chance.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-13-07, 02:43 PM	Also, get a +1 adamantine weapon. Watch them try to beat THAT hardness. How much would an adamantine backpack weigh? :plotting: By the way, did your DM ever get into driving around hitting mailboxes with a baseball bat? Ever hear of making a mailbox out of 3/4'' steel pipe or filling a mailbox with cement? What I'm getting at is that the party arcane spellcaster needs to research the Reverberating Ward spell.
BW0222 07-13-07, 03:27 PM	danielinthewolvesden. OK, all of a sudden my DM has started to get back into Sundering- and not just weapons, but backpacks, quivers and such like. Sundering equipment is typically a stupid (if not suicidal) tactic. 1. In most cases, you are in a life and death combat. Wasting precious attacks to damage a backpack typically does little to keep you alive within the next minute. Few creatures are so self-sacrificing that they will destroy equipment in return for their lives? Even then, there is typically nothing in a pack which means life and death -- food, bedrolls, etc. 2. Sundering backpacks does not destory what is inside. At best it would spill the items out. So? How does that help you now? Are you going to waste further rounds attacking items on the ground? A quiver maybe, but even that is mighty temporary. (Weapons and items in hand make far more sense.) 3. Most items could be fixed, repaired, or worked around. After the combat, they can cast mending to repair such items, borrow someone elses, use magic to make food, etc. In most cases, it isn't even an inconvinience. 4. How do you know there is something important there? Most folks don't keep critical stuff in backpacks. Most items needed in combat won't be within backs but on belts, pockets, loops, scabbards, etc. where they can be taking out without drawing an AoO. 5. The DM is free to rule that certain types of objects can't be damaged via certain weapons. You can't sunder rations, you can't destroy a pouch with a club, you can't destory a quiver with a spear. Sundering weapons, bows, obvious wands (being used against you), etc. are fair game. It would definitely help in keeping your alive -- provided that you have improved sunder and it was looking reasonably effective. However, destroying items in someones pack (while it might lead to an uncomfortable nights sleep) is highly unlikely to be fatal and certainly not fatal before they kill you. However, if you want obvious defenses against sundering... 1. Carry a lot of stuff. Have some extra weapons, have the group carry a few extra (empty) backpacks stowed away. 2. Take extra items and make sure certain items are spread out amongst different party members. 3. Take a few mending spells. 4. Put key items in multiple pouches. Don't have all your potions or scrolls in one place. Have an extra holy symbol. 5. Wear extra (even if empty) scabbards, have three sticks hanging from your belt (which one is the real wand?), etc. 6. Weight permitting consider bone, metal, or harded cases. 7. Consider putting wards or certain spells on your containers. A glypth of warding on your pouch for example. 8. Consider mules, pack dogs, or saddle bags on your animal companion. 9. If folks start repeated sundering, start readying actions for when they attack. They attack (sunder), you take your readied action (hit or miss), and then 5' step away. Their attack fails. They might be able to 5' step for the next attack, but (besides still having your AoO) additional attacks are usually at lower BAB. 10. Consider sundering their weapons, tripping, using a reach weapon, etc. 11. Consider fighting defensively, spring attacking, etc. 12. Consider having a few potions of mirror image, blur, displacement, protection from evil, etc. Spells like fog cloud, darkness, etc. might make it difficult to even see such items. Invisibility, greater invisiblity, etc. certainly makes sundering impossible. 13. Consider just laughing and trying to convince them of the uselessness of that. "Only nine more weapons to go. I figure you'll be dead long before you get through half of them." 14. Consider having a magical adamantine weapon. As soon at he starts sundering, draw it, and see how long it he wastes his time trying sunder attacks. 15. Consider quickdraw. You at least always have a weapon and can attack multiple times. Consider combat reflexes so each attempt likely draws an AoO. 16. Move next to some friends and/or have folks concentrate on him. Make it clear that he'll run out of hit points long before you run out of equipment/weapons. 17. Try disquise self (so your adamanine mace looks like a wand, and your wand like an adamanine mace).
Sunic_Flames 07-13-07, 03:28 PM	Sundering from a monsters point of view is kind of stupid, cause remember, they think that if they beat you, they get to loot you dead bodies. So why break stuff that they will get to loot? Precisely. This is why sundering is a losing and stupid tactic for just about everyone. Who would break their own treasure? Even better, who would train to get better at breaking their own treasure? You might as well take a feat that makes natural 2s as well as 1s automatic failures, or one that lowers your con. :rolleyes: Besides if you want to get the weapon away from them can't you just disarm it? That works better vs bows too I believe.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-13-07, 03:36 PM	You might as well take a feat...that lowers your con. Well, there went my comfort in creating a Chain-smoker feat. :(
wonlee76 07-13-07, 04:21 PM	Precisely. This is why sundering is a losing and stupid tactic for just about everyone. Who would break their own treasure? Even better, who would train to get better at breaking their own treasure? You might as well take a feat that makes natural 2s as well as 1s automatic failures, or one that lowers your con. :rolleyes: Besides if you want to get the weapon away from them can't you just disarm it? That works better vs bows too I believe. You know... sundering is not as dumb of a tactic as you make it sound. Destroying a weapon or shield which will substantially increase your odds of success (by dimininishing your enemie's offensive or defensive capabilities) is a sound tactic to "win" the fight and get all the other goodies that particular enemy has. Now if its the only item this person has... then you might have a point but you make it sound like sundering is never a good idea. It is a good idea in the right circumstances. Evil NPC sundering that PC's Holy Weapon sounds like a great tactic to me for example (a piece of equipment a evil guy couldn't use and depending on motivations, probably wouldn't want to sell it so that some other goodie two shoes can use it against his evil brethren).
The man they call Boxhead 07-13-07, 04:36 PM	I will point out that a giant has little use for the halfing's short sword (expect maybe to pick his teeth). Smashing the little rogues weapon may just stop that pain in the ankle Sneak Attack for a round or two... Also, the Steel Predator, Nightwalker and a couple of other beasties have a natural sundering ability- they will use it, as might any semi-inteeligent monster.
Phrennzy 07-13-07, 04:37 PM	You know... sundering is not as dumb of a tactic as you make it sound. Destroying a weapon or shield which will substantially increase your odds of success (by dimininishing your enemie's offensive or defensive capabilities) is a sound tactic to "win" the fight and get all the other goodies that particular enemy has. Now if its the only item this person has... then you might have a point but you make it sound like sundering is never a good idea. It is a good idea in the right circumstances. Evil NPC sundering that PC's Holy Weapon sounds like a great tactic to me for example (a piece of equipment a evil guy couldn't use and depending on motivations, probably wouldn't want to sell it so that some other goodie two shoes can use it against his evil brethren). Yeah, a vampire would be smart in sundering the wooden stake, but stupid to sunder Van Helsing's backpack.
BlackFiend 07-13-07, 04:55 PM	Sunder is not a bad option for a desperate villain, or one who could care less to gain your precious bow or staff. If the villain thinks she is against heavy odds, and has back up, then she should logically attempt to take the wind out of the enemy to gain herself an edge. She'd do better to disarm than sunder, but its easier to sunder a bow, staff or wand, than disarm it, me thinks. But I'm not sure. I know disarm gives the attacker big bonuses for disarming a nonmelee weapon in the form of penalties to the defender. +4 I think. The defender also gets a +4 penalty if the item is small, like a wand. A tidy +8 to a disarm attempt against a wand user, for instance. Sundering a shield is rarely an excellent option. If you have 3 iterative attacks, you are better off using the 1st attack against the creature, then the 2 smaller attacks against the shield since the AC to hit is much less.
Kursk 07-13-07, 05:19 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? When combat starts have everyone drop their backpacks, quivers, etc., in a pile. When the bad guys rush up to hack them to pieces, just annihilate them.
DrMorganes 07-13-07, 07:25 PM	There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a feat called "Weapon Finesse (Ray)". Weapon Finesse only applies to Light melee weapons. Perhaps this poster meant to say Weapon Focus (Ray)? THAT is a viable tactic. I think that's a required feat for the Spellwarp Sniper prestige class...
DrMorganes 07-13-07, 07:32 PM	Sundering a weapon is a decent tactical choice when the opponent is seeking to take the PC alive (and vice versa) with minimal damage to said PC. However, removing equipment hard-won from the PCs with a single strike or two makes for disgruntled PCs when done continually. The occasional sunder is fine at lower levels; after all, a mundane sword doesn't really cost that much. At mid levels I'd consider things carefully before using it, and only if I had something better lined up as treasure shortly down the road. At high levels, the circumstances would need to be dire before I'd even consider having an opponent sunder the uber sword of mighty smiting that the PC spent half his career adventuring to acquire.
KillerGM 07-13-07, 07:46 PM	My advice is to talk to the DM. Say it really takes the fun out of the game to have all your gear sundered by every monster. Say you recognize that it is sometimes tactically advantageous for the opponent to sunder your weapon, but it goes too far when all of your opponents not only sunder your weapons, but also your carried items. Basically, don't try to "beat" the DM. If you make (or continue to make) it a "player vs DM" situation, you'll in all likelihood lose. The DM is, after all, more "powerful" in terms of in-game situations. Just be honest and say "Hey, I'm really not enjoying the way every opponent tries to sunder all of our stuff. It makes sense some of the time, but all the time is just too much. Do you think you could stop doing it? It really kills the fun - I mean, monsters are only on-screen for a few rounds, it doesn't really matter what happens to them or their stuff, but we're going to be around for a long time, and it really sucks to keep having all of our items destroyed." Something like that. Personally, I think your DM is being a jerk. Sunder is sort of an acceptable tactic for opponents in rare circumstances (see: vampires vs wooden stakes), but on the whole, when used against PCs, it's just an jerk thing to do. Hope it helps! :D EDIT: I think your DM is being a jerk if he is sundering your things with no rhyme or reason, with all the opponents, and not just your weapons/essential things. I rolled a 20 on my "Jump to Conclusions" check. :D
J_Vhad 07-13-07, 09:10 PM	I'm still failing to see how sunder is a stupid thing to do. If the PCs are up against multiple enemies, especially less intelligent folk such as orcs, I feel it makes perfect sense to sunder. How are the enemies going to know the PCs have super weapons/shields? They don't have glowing neon signs. The PCs don't have name titles above their heads that say Bob- Fighter 13th, letting the baddies know they'll have magic gear. To enemies they PCs are just another bunch of guys, and low level folk out number high level folk vastly. Most equipment is normal and nonmagical, so wouldn't it be a bit meta-gaming to follow the line of thinking that "Hey I can't bust this guys stuff because is might be worth something. You can give them an appraise check, but even then it's just going to tell the enemy it's masterwork at most (and most sunderers don't have appraise as a class skill). So unless the weapon is glowing or sheathed in flames, chances are no one knows it's special. "Oh but intelligent creatures would want to sell regular weapons too, they're worth something afterall." Wait one night, cast make whole, instant normal loot. It's perfectly logical for an orc raiding party to break all of a garrison's gear, beat them unconscious afterward, torture them for fun, then arm the horde with their new whole weapons the next day. That said if your DM is metagaming and all the thieves guild are busting up your amulets, belts, socks and nipple piercings then smack him with your PHB of smiting +5 and tell him you're not playing his stupid game anymore.
danielinthewolvesden 07-14-07, 03:29 AM	I'm still failing to see how sunder is a stupid thing to do. If the PCs are up against multiple enemies, especially less intelligent folk such as orcs, I feel it makes perfect sense to sunder. How are the enemies going to know the PCs have super weapons/shields? They don't have glowing neon signs. The PCs don't have name titles above their heads that say Bob- Fighter 13th, letting the baddies know they'll have magic gear. To enemies they PCs are just another bunch of guys, and low level folk out number high level folk vastly. Most equipment is normal and nonmagical, so wouldn't it be a bit meta-gaming to follow the line of thinking that "Hey I can't bust this guys stuff because is might be worth something. Well, yes, but no. Ok, let us assume they think those are more or less normal weapons. But they can see the other back-up weapons there ranged about the body. Sundering without the feat gets you hurt, and does no damage to the enemy, who just draws another weapon. Sure, if you think you can win the sunder 2-3 times in a row, and take three free hits, and then ... well what then? You have taken 3 free hits, are hurting and your foe just runs away.
Toran_A_Sunder 07-14-07, 11:29 AM	You'll never beat me! Do you hear me!?You meddling kids can't stop my diabolical plans for world domination!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sunic_Flames 07-14-07, 02:08 PM	Sunder is almost impossible to justify, as near all items fall into one of three groups: Group 1: Strong and valuable. This ranges from your well made (MW) gear at level 1 to your shiny glowy swords at level 20. Killing them and taking their stuff means you now have an item that's either useful, valuable, or both. Breaking it means cheating yourself out of treasure. Not justified. Group 2: Useful, yet low value. Think holy symbol, spell component pouch... The problem is, if there's even the remotest chance those are gonna be broken, they're gonna have extra. They can afford it. So when the enemy breaks 3 out of 3 dozen spell component pouches instead of turning the wizard into a fine red mist, and said wizard retorts by turning the damned fool into a toad... well what have you learned? Oh and 'wooden stakes' would likely fall into this category as well, if being used against a vampire. Group 3: Inconsequential. You see, it's a well known fact better warriors have better equipment, and vice versa. Very easily deduced from both an IC and an OOC standpoint. So when you see the four guys approach you with only decent weaponry, you know you're just facing normal men at arms and chances are, have the prowess to easily deal with them should it come to blows. Little incentive to bother breaking their weapon when one hit will likely drop them after all.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 02:48 PM	Yes, when metagaming sundering is hard to justify. Care to explain how it's unjustified when actually playing a roleplaying game out of D&D? 1. How do you know they're stuff is valuable? Unless it's glowing you don't automatically know it's magic unless you have Detect Magic and are casting it. And if it's just masterwork it's going to take an appraise check. That's one minute of standing there studying your opponent's weapon/shield/ect. in combat. Not that smart. Masterwork gear and Magic Gear are the abnormal, not the standard. The majority of people in the world are very low level and don't have a lot of money. Most towns or kingdoms however, do have a Cleric of 3rd level that can cast Make Whole on good weapons appraised after a fight if they were sundered. Does this bring back the magic? No. Chances are you never knew IC that it was magic to begin with though. 2. Usually a couple, three at most is what is carried. If you're wandering around with 800 slings because you're affraid to have them sundered that's metagaming, and you're going to have to carry them somewhere. 30 holy symbols and 800 stakes are not going to fit on your belt. 3. So because you havn't heard of someone makes killing them easy. Wow, every character I make from now on is going to have memory loss so I can down the BBEGs in no time. Seriously, was there a point here? How do you know they're a better warrior, a good warrior, the best warrior? You may have heard of them, but then again you've probably heard of Constable Billy Bob as well and he's not a better fighter. Yes, warriors of certain status are generally going to have decent equipment (royal guards ect.) but other than that it's strictly metagaming to think "Well I'm level six and this guy I'm fighting must be a CR equal to mine so i can't break his decent stuff"
Sunic_Flames 07-14-07, 04:27 PM	Yes, when metagaming sundering is hard to justify. Care to explain how it's unjustified when actually playing a roleplaying game out of D&D? 1. How do you know they're stuff is valuable? Unless it's glowing you don't automatically know it's magic unless you have Detect Magic and are casting it. And if it's just masterwork it's going to take an appraise check. That's one minute of standing there studying your opponent's weapon/shield/ect. in combat. Not that smart. Masterwork gear and Magic Gear are the abnormal, not the standard. The majority of people in the world are very low level and don't have a lot of money. Most towns or kingdoms however, do have a Cleric of 3rd level that can cast Make Whole on good weapons appraised after a fight if they were sundered. Does this bring back the magic? No. Chances are you never knew IC that it was magic to begin with though. 2. Usually a couple, three at most is what is carried. If you're wandering around with 800 slings because you're affraid to have them sundered that's metagaming, and you're going to have to carry them somewhere. 30 holy symbols and 800 stakes are not going to fit on your belt. 3. So because you havn't heard of someone makes killing them easy. Wow, every character I make from now on is going to have memory loss so I can down the BBEGs in no time. Seriously, was there a point here? How do you know they're a better warrior, a good warrior, the best warrior? You may have heard of them, but then again you've probably heard of Constable Billy Bob as well and he's not a better fighter. Yes, warriors of certain status are generally going to have decent equipment (royal guards ect.) but other than that it's strictly metagaming to think "Well I'm level six and this guy I'm fighting must be a CR equal to mine so i can't break his decent stuff" 1: If they're fighting you either their stuff is clearly valuable to you, or it is not. If not, see 3. If at higher levels the enemies do not have a magic weapon, but are humanoid they aren't likely to be a threat to you at all. If they do, kill them and take their stuff. It doesn't matter if you know or not. 2: Drastic example, point is aiming an attack at them is a waste. 3: If lower, he's not a threat to you. If much higher, escaping would be more prudent. Otherwise, yes his stuff is valuable to you, and no matter what the case is no point in breaking his stuff. No metagaming involved.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 05:47 PM	1. How do you know either way? Most of the time it's going to look like normal equipment to you. So why would you be afraid to bust if up? Assuming that it's going to be magical is metagaming. As is assuming it has to be magical to hurt you. A fighter than spends all his money on AC bumping items and strength guantlets can still hurt you obviously with his sword. Taking their stuff is one thing, but assuming IC that everything the enemy has is going to be super valuable and that all enemies carry a fortune on them IS metagaming. 2. Does it put that item out of comission? Yes. If the person is carrying a zillion because he's a metagaming jerk then it won't be as effective, but it still wastes his time forcing him to dig out a new one. In the case of a vamp, full attacking you can hit twice and sunder the stake, then they have to draw a new one keeping you from taking a full attack. How is that not effective? All you've shown here is that it isn't effective if the people arn't roleplaying, but instead are metagaming. That's already a known fact. 3. Do enemies have their levels displayed above their heads? It isn't wow where they have a grey two or a skull depending on their relation to you. Levels are not an IC concept and basing your character reactions on them IS metagaming. How is busting their stuff pointless if it helps you beat them? No metagaming involved. Only if by no you mean every point you've made was metagaming.
Sunic_Flames 07-14-07, 05:56 PM	1. How do you know either way? Most of the time it's going to look like normal equipment to you. So why would you be afraid to bust if up? Assuming that it's going to be magical is metagaming. As is assuming it has to be magical to hurt you. A fighter than spends all his money on AC bumping items and strength guantlets can still hurt you obviously with his sword. Taking their stuff is one thing, but assuming IC that everything the enemy has is going to be super valuable and that all enemies carry a fortune on them IS metagaming. No, it's common sense. More experienced combatants have better gear. It's true of PCs, it's true of NPCs. You don't have to know a level, or know their level to determine this. You don't have to even know the term level... therefore it is not even remotely metagaming. Do random nobodies in the guard have high quality swords? No. Does Sir Salaskar, the dragon slaying knight have a good weapon? You better believe it. And would his opponents also have good weapons? Probably, if they were a threat to him. If not a threat, a swat or two downs them. If significantly better than him, disarming and stealing the weapon, or even better tactically retreating is the better option. And this need not ever involve the word levels... he swings his sword, guy gets run through on the first blow. Must not be very good. Instead he swings his sword and despite it being a good blow, it just kinda glances off and the counterattack is significantly more effective? Guess what, they're stronger. 2. Does it put that item out of comission? Yes. If the person is carrying a zillion because he's a metagaming jerk then it won't be as effective, but it still wastes his time forcing him to dig out a new one. In the case of a vamp, full attacking you can hit twice and sunder the stake, then they have to draw a new one keeping you from taking a full attack. How is that not effective? All you've shown here is that it isn't effective if the people arn't roleplaying, but instead are metagaming. That's already a known fact. "Enemies love breaking my holy symbol/spell component pouch/etc to try and shut me down. As I am very smart and/or wise, gee I know what I'll do. I'll carry extras so they have to waste their time if they want to use those tactics on me! Though, even a mentally inept person could come to that conclusion..." :rolleyes: 3. Do enemies have their levels displayed above their heads? It isn't wow where they have a grey two or a skull depending on their relation to you. Levels are not an IC concept and basing your character reactions on them IS metagaming. How is busting their stuff pointless if it helps you beat them? Doesn't have to be, it's called logical deductions based on obvious evidence, otherwise known as see above. :rolleyes: Only if by no you mean every point you've made was metagaming. Utterly and completely false, QED.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 07:02 PM	No, it's common sense. More experienced combatants have better gear. It's true of PCs, it's true of NPCs. You don't have to know a level, or know their level to determine this. You don't have to even know the term level... therefore it is not even remotely metagaming. How does the character know they are more experienced? Better? In the world experience does not mean better, wealth does. The king is likely to have more money than the best of his knights even if he's only a level 7 aristocrat. The point you tried to make fails to prove it's not metagaming, because it is made strictly from the viewpoint of the player, not the character. It's using outside knowledge of the game system as knowlege in character, hence metagaming. Do random nobodies in the guard have high quality swords? No. What guard? If it's the kings guard there is every reason for them to be armed with masterwork weapons even at low levels, and in full-plate, despite the fact that most of them arn't even named. Does Sir Salaskar, the dragon slaying knight have a good weapon? You better believe it. How does the character know though? Unless it's blatantly magical (aura, sheathed in flames, ect) then it appears just like a normal sword, or masterwork if they get a chance to actually study it. Most weapons do not look special, they appear as normal (or masterwork) weapons. Why would a character assume there is more to everyones weapons? And would his opponents also have good weapons? Probably, if they were a threat to him. Again this could only be a solid conclusion is his opponents were known to be wealthy. If his opponents are the sewer rats, a bunch of low life bums, why would the characters assume they are going to have powerful weapons? Player knowledge does not equal character knowledge. When you try to pass it off as such, it is metagaming. If not a threat, a swat or two downs them. If significantly better than him, disarming and stealing the weapon, or even better tactically retreating is the better option. Weapons are not the only focus of combat, there are feats, spells, skills, hit points, ect. that come into play. Just because the knight guts a man in one swing doesn't mean his sword is a fanboy katana with 8 million enhancements on it, nor would it normally be a characters first conclusion unless it was blatantly highly magical. Even then most characters would assume it was mostly due to his skill. Likewise a group of similarly leveled opponents with no magic items could be a threat still with their feats and spells. I do not understand why everyone tries to pass off disarming as the same as sundering. Mechanically it doesn't give anywhere near the same advantage, and sundering has many uses that disarming doesn't cover. And this need not ever involve the word levels... he swings his sword, guy gets run through on the first blow. Must not be very good. Instead he swings his sword and despite it being a good blow, it just kinda glances off and the counterattack is significantly more effective? Guess what, they're stronger. If it's a good blow, it doesn't glance off, and luck factors in as well. First round Sir Knighticus gets hit in the face with a pitchfork by random guy one. Doesn't mean random guy one is a good fighter, he could be a level one commoner, it means he got a good shot in. Consistency is where conclusions are generally drawn from. The conclusion "that guy is hurting Sir Knighticus, he must have good gear on him" is not an in game conclusion 90% of the time. It is a player conclusion. "Enemies love breaking my holy symbol/spell component pouch/etc to try and shut me down. As I am very smart and/or wise, gee I know what I'll do. I'll carry extras so they have to waste their time if they want to use those tactics on me! Though, even a mentally inept person could come to that conclusion..." Why would a hero go out and buy 36 of those things though? Think from the eyes of a character. You keep going around waving around your crucifix and bringing down smiting on people and for some reason they're breaking it. Are you going to feel your backpack to the brim with crucifixs? Jut because they don't way anything doesn't mean they don't mean they don't take up space. The most logical route would be to get a more resistant one, not fill you backpack to the brim with them so you can't carry anything else. Doesn't have to be, it's called logical deductions based on obvious evidence, otherwise known as see above. So basing your character reactions on OOC knowlege doesn't have to be metagaming. Right. That ruined your credibility. Utterly and completely false, QED. Funny because you didn't prove anything. You just went about trying to make excuses for metagaming rather than trying to show it wasn't.
High Octane 07-15-07, 10:12 AM	You'll never beat me! Do you hear me!?You meddling kids can't stop my diabolical plans for world domination!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Lets find out who he REALLY is! *pulls mask off Toran* GASP! It's old man Stephens! He's been using the Devis disguise to make people think he was just a worthless bard in order to cover up his kender smuggling operation!
Toran_A_Sunder 07-15-07, 10:41 AM	Lets find out who he REALLY is! *pulls mask off Toran* GASP! It's old man Stephens! He's been using the Devis disguise to make people think he was just a worthless bard in order to cover up his kender smuggling operation! And i would have gotten away with it, to, if it weren't for those snooping kids!
High Octane 07-15-07, 10:43 AM	Found the rule here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#effect). You can show them a globe, you can show them the math, you can show them a sailboat disappearing in the distance after 60 miles, you can show them images from space of a floating sphere from every angle but some people will still say the earth is flat.
SokenzanMarauder 07-15-07, 12:21 PM	And i would have gotten away with it, to, if it weren't for those snooping kids! I lol'd. :D -Gene
danielinthewolvesden 07-15-07, 03:20 PM	OK, folks, this thread is about Sunder, not about Rays and Weapon Finesse. Please take that discussion elsewhere if you want to continue. thanks. And for the rest- thanks for the help, keep it up!
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-16-07, 03:31 AM	Sunder can be a viable option in some cases, not in all cases, but in some cases. Bull rush is a bad choice in many cases. Disarm is a bad choice in many cases. Casting fireball is a bad choice in many cases (darn flatus demons). You're the fighter with two attacks in any given round, standing in front of a wizard or cleric, sunder and grapple sudden becomes a niftly option. If you really don't want the other character to be using whatever it is, you sunder it, not just disarm the guy. If the thing is delicate, smash it so it won't be used on you later. I'm not saying sunder's always the best option between sunder and disarm, but it still is a better option than disarm at times. That said, sunder is one of those things of which the DM should probably steer clear. Much like the magic immune fighter with the keen vorpal scimitar and the improved invisibilty, silenced rogue with the crossbow, sundering tends to quickly annoy the brunt of the sundering quickly. Note, though, in the above, I didn't choose to sunder the guy's backpack. Why is your DM doing that part? We never did get to hear your take on that. ...removing equipment hard-won from the PCs with a single strike or two makes for disgruntled PCs when done continually.... Or doing anything that leaves the player feeling helpless or specifically countered - like carting ten redundant examples of the same item, like a spell component pouch or a holy symbol.
Unremarkable 07-16-07, 03:59 AM	I've found Sunder quite useful as a player, especially when you combine it with Combat Brute and Deadly Concussion. You break his equipment, deal damage, and get an extra attack! Sweet. I'm sure barbarians don't care much about broken mundane/low-level weaponry anyways. RE: Rays: Player's Handbook:175 (Aiming a Spell) Ray: Some effects are rays (for example, ray of enfeeblement). You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. Player's Handbook:136 (Attacks) Ranged Attack Roll: 1d20 + base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty Player's Handbook:141 (Casting a Spell) Touch Attacks: Since you need only touch your enemy, you make a touch attack instead of a regular attack. Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke an attacks of opportunity. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity, so you may want to cast the spell and then move to the target instead of vice versa. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks (for touches made with, say, your hand) and ranged touch attacks (for touches made with magic rays, for example). You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
TMX 07-16-07, 04:53 AM	Sundering: I got sundered once. DM: Oh, this guy has improved sunder. Adam, what's the hardness of your rapier... Rays: It's a ranged attack so you use your dexterity. It's a touch attack so you use the defenders touch AC. From the SRD (Linked words highlighted): Touch Attacks Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). Attack Roll An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. Attack Bonus Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is: Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
Ayra 07-16-07, 07:46 AM	While on the subject of sunders, I wonder when the right time for a player would be to use sunder on an NPC? From what I've read up until now you're just cheating yourself out of money, which I agree with, hence my reluctance to using it. I do have some nice feats, such as improved sunder and the sundering cleave ability from a tactical feat. I mean, I can see it be useful in some cases. If the opponent is wielding a shield and the rest of the party has trouble hitting him, you sunder his shield and then kick his butt. Maybe also if the weapon itself isn't very useful to the party to take along (I'm not sure of the sundering rules on larger weapons, but if its something too heavy to drag along you might as well destroy it). Sundering holy symbols or reagents/focuses would be a nice option as well, but most of the time you need to ready an action for it, or hope the caster provokes an AoO. Anyway... when should I use sunder and when shouldn't I? Wouldn't it in most -if not all- cases be better to just damage the opponent? Okay, the sundering holy symbols is pretty good but I personally haven't fought many divine casters yet. I definitely wouldn't go and sunder my opponents backpack, because then I'll end up without loot.
BW0222 07-16-07, 03:16 PM	Folks, I'll agree with much of Sunic_Flames take. While one can't know exactly what equipment a group may or may not have, an intelligent opponent can make reasonable inferences. A vampire seeing a bunch of folks with wooden stakes in his lair might ask himself a few questions. How did these people find me? It wasn't an accident, since they have wooden stakes out, so they much actually be hunting me. Now, maybe they are really lucky and just overheard some of my spawn talking about this place... but more likely the have the power to divine this place, killed some of my spawn, or are skilled enough to follow some of them here undetected, etc. Next, are they folks that brave? Most folks run from even the word vampire! Since my existance is at stake I'll assume that they aren't just lucky, foolhardy, and unprepared. So... those stakes in the hands aren't the only ones they are carrying. They must have more. They have lots of weapons and armour, so I'll also assume they have holy water, alchemists fire, potions, and maybe a few are spellcasters -- likely armed with undead specific spells. Now... sundering all this stuff isn't too likely. They all have backpacks, pouches, pockets, and belts. By the time I sunder all the places where stakes, holy water, etc. might be hiding, an experienced group could easily have hacked me down and then I'd be vulnerable in gaseous form? I better plan my attack based on the assumption that sundering those stakes won't save me. Of course maybe the group only has the three stakes they are carrying, no holy water, and aren't prepared against undead. Maybe after killing them, he finds a note on them saying "I ordered dinner for you, master." and one of his spawn tricked a bunch of 1st-level folks to stake "Danger -- unsafe mine" notices on the dirt walls. However, it is reasonable for the vampire (and most folks) to assume that if folks are coming for them, if they are in dangerous areas, etc. that they have appropriate equipment. There is little harm in doing so.
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 04:21 PM	But what does he see them carrying? Why would any decent vampire slayer keep his weapons in a backpack that provokes to ruffle through and get them out? They should all be relatively visible to the vampire. How is sundering a disadvantage to him? Wood's hardness isn't that good and glass should be horrible. If they have one weapon out, you can sunder it and still get an attack with full attacks (I think it's two attacks, but i don't have my MM with me). Then, they are reduced to one attack instead of a full attack, because they have to spend an action drawing a new one out. Alchemists Fire? Wouldn't it be better to sunder it in their hand so you only take splash damage and they get the brunt of the attack? Holy water? They can only carry so much easily accesable. If a man is standing at the back pulling a vial out of his pack and tossing it in the fray each round I can easily see the master yelling "You fools get him away from the bag" at his spawn. One sundered backpack and a bullrush later, the poor guy doesn't have his supply anymore. Then, if it's someone right in combat, wouldn't it be better to sunder it than get hit with it. You could technically sunder it before they draw it if it's on their belt (which it should be, and it should be visible to a degree.). Yes logical deduction works fine, but you have to realize, chances are the vampire has to have though all that through in a very short amount of time, most likely seconds. Everything in that scenario is also blatant. A sharp piece of wood is always gonna be useful as a stake. Little vials of water arn't usually carried in mass for drinking purposes, and alchemists fire doesn't exactly look like a health drink (although I have had to rule that drinking a vial of it is a coup de grace). The difference is that what Sunic was arguing, is that everyone should automatically know what level a person is and that said person must have a small fortune in gear because of that. Which is in fact metagaming. Does you character have any concept of levels? Who has the most wealth in a kingdom? Are their people with good gear that aren't very good at what they do? Are their people with little gear that are very good at what they do? Answer Key: No, nobility, yes, yes. To explain more. Character levels are OOC knowledge, anything based on them to draw a conclusion in game must be metagaming. The nobles are the most wealthy, generally, of the kingdom. Most nobles arn't particularly good warriors (Aristocrat really isn't a great fighting class), so why would it be assumed that great fighters and warriors (not classes, but types of people) are always rich instead of these nobles. The kings guards are almost always shown in fantasy and films as being well armed and armored (1st level warrior in masterwork plate with mw weapons is pretty good equipment wise) but not very good. I would like to point out that most people in the world are relatively low leveled, so concept of what is good is going to be measured in comparison to a relatively low mark. Expert craftsmen such as blacksmiths and the like arn't usually reknown for their infinite fortune in treasure, yet they can be reknown for their wares. Lastly, explain how in a usual case the people even know what the equipment is. Is it uncommon for people to wear necklaces? Rings? Boots? Belts? Cloaks? Robes? Shields? Weapons? Brooches? Answer Key: No. What sets out magical versions from the rest? Nothing unless something specifically says so. How do they know? Detect Magic for whether it's magic, appraise for if it's masterwork. Likewise, nothing specifically says masterwork says it looks special. Masterwork is a quality that doesn't have to be noticeable, and I don't see why would be unless it was seen in action or held and looked over. Without being able to appraise it, it's a normal weapon to the eye. So most of the time when people fight other people they just see it as normal people. Not walking treasure troves. Unless of course they are metagaming and using OOC knowledge that the DM is going to run you against like leveled stuff that usually has treasure.
Sunic_Flames 07-16-07, 04:27 PM	Just for the hell of it... Can't be bothered to make a super long post when it isn't necessary, but this is in response to that argument. And why are these rich people fighting you directly? They have guards. Irrevelent. You draw a sword on the king, that's when the court wizard tries to disable you, the king's guard tries to capture or kill you... The level of the king is irrevelent even if such a thing were to be known. When I said guard, I meant generic term for random warrior 1 NPC, as in town guard. Also, again quality of opponent and quality of gear are intertwined. The 'king's guard' are well equipped because they're the elite defenders of the kingdom for example. Therefore there are three possibilities. It does not matter which are the case as in all cases sundering is a poor option, and therefore no metagaming is involved as in order for metagaming to be involved, there must be OOC only info influencing the decision such that things would not be done the same way were this OOC info not employed. As you need not know which is the case as the modus operandi is the same in any and all cases, metagaming is not occuring. QED. Again this could only be a solid conclusion is his opponents were known to be wealthy. If his opponents are the sewer rats, a bunch of low life bums, why would the characters assume they are going to have powerful weapons? Player knowledge does not equal character knowledge. When you try to pass it off as such, it is metagaming. Which means trash opponent, killed in one hit. Why bother breaking their dinky little weapons? See above. Weapons are not the only focus of combat, there are feats, spells, skills, hit points, ect. that come into play. Just because the knight guts a man in one swing doesn't mean his sword is a fanboy katana with 8 million enhancements on it, nor would it normally be a characters first conclusion unless it was blatantly highly magical. Even then most characters would assume it was mostly due to his skill. Likewise a group of similarly leveled opponents with no magic items could be a threat still with their feats and spells. Who said anything about a uber sword? I was refering to the concept of HP as the characters understand it, meaning the inexperienced warriors get run through with a single good blow, whereas the ones with years of training can mostly avoid the attack, it having a significantly lower effect on their well being as the wound was not as severe. It's simple really. As attacking is a better option than sundering, you can gauge the quality of your opponent in a swing or two simply by determining how well they hold up against your attacks. If they drop, trivial. If they remain standing, and are in good shape formidible. Furthermore, as good gear and good quality opponent are intertwined, it doesn't matter if you say good gear = good opponent, or good opponent = good gear, the result is the same. See above. I do not understand why everyone tries to pass off disarming as the same as sundering. Mechanically it doesn't give anywhere near the same advantage, and sundering has many uses that disarming doesn't cover. Either way the enemy cannot use the object against you. This way means more treasure, or at least not less treasure. X - anything is always going to be lower than X alone, unless anything is zero which makes it a non issue anyways, or a negative number which would be impossible in this case. Why would a hero go out and buy 36 of those things though? Think from the eyes of a character. You keep going around waving around your crucifix and bringing down smiting on people and for some reason they're breaking it. Are you going to feel your backpack to the brim with crucifixs? Jut because they don't way anything doesn't mean they don't mean they don't take up space. The most logical route would be to get a more resistant one, not fill you backpack to the brim with them so you can't carry anything else. From the eyes of a character multiple cheap things outweigh one expensive one that may or may not even work as well. After all, what's the best you can do? Adamantine? Other adamantine weapons, which if enemies are seriously trying to break your stuff they will have still smash it. An adamantine holy symbol is what? 3,000 gp? Can't make a spell component pouch from it at all. And this assumes they could even obtain such a thing. So basing your character reactions on OOC knowlege doesn't have to be metagaming. Right. That ruined your credibility. Funny because you didn't prove anything. You just went about trying to make excuses for metagaming rather than trying to show it wasn't. Utterly and completely false, as has been proven by this neat thing called logic several times. Perhaps you prefer illogical approaches like breaking your own treasure, but I have the sense to know better than to fall into such an obvious trap. Most likely you will continue to accuse me of metagaming, please feel free to waste your breath. Thank you.
Paladin_Hiroshi 07-16-07, 05:13 PM	Dear Whoever it was that was metagaming by saying that people have equipment equal to their level. Not true. Sorry about that. Allow me to introduce two characters here.The first, is Aelthred, King of Wessex. He has a +5 holy longsword, but he was born to his station, and has never adventured. Due to training, he is a Level 5 aristocrat. He is damned rich, but money does not equal skill. He is too valuable to risk in the field, and joins in a cavalry charge when the battle is deemed won, by his bodyguards. On the other hand, we have Uthred, mercenary captain, who serves under Aelthred as one of his captains. He has fought in many different battles and campaigns, mostly in the shield wall, side to side with common soldiers. He owns a suit of chainmail, and a large round wooden shield. He owns a silver longsword, looted from a noble, and a sax (short-sword) which he has wielded from birth. He is a level 15 warrior. He is poor, because he is not of noble birth, not a mage, nor an adventurer. I don't play the gear to NPC level rules, my NPC's have backgrounds, lives and timetables, as well as gear appropriate to their rank, station and life, regardless of metagame concepts such as level. Play it how you want, but not everyone plays it like you. :D
Mock26 07-16-07, 08:44 PM	Have the mage come up with a custom new spell that allows items to be enchanted with a "charge" so that when someone directly attacks, say, your backpack, the person who attacked it is given some nice electrical or fire damage. Or, a couple of bags of holding tied to cords that are then worn under your padded clothing. Don't have padded clothing? Buy some. Without metagaming the DM cannot sunder items that cannot be seen. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
TMX 07-16-07, 08:46 PM	OK, folks, this thread is about Sunder, not about Rays and Weapon Finesse. Please take that discussion elsewhere if you want to continue. thanks. Speaking of derailing threads... I agree, it is not metagaming to assume those more powerful than you have better equipment. I also think that in the case where the DM is being a bit of a munchkin, doing odd, out of character things is acceptable. If lots of my opponents started to try and break my equipment, I'd use "they must have been trained to fight in this way" as some fluff to justify me buying 100,000 longswords. You may also want to look at the Vow of Poverty... :P
Mock26 07-16-07, 08:54 PM	Another way to beat it is come up with some type of spell that when cast on the item causes any item that violently strikes said item to stick to it!
WizO_Cat 07-16-07, 09:52 PM	Yes, let's keep the discussion on the topic of the thread. It seems to have gone back to that, but I just want to make sure ...
DerelictDroid 07-17-07, 03:11 AM	The only time I've used sunder was vs. a Balor and its nasty +1 Vorpal Sword. Might I add the use was successful. :D Generally not a good idea though in my opinion. Disarm, however, I use more frequently.
yellowdingo 07-17-07, 08:27 AM	Yes, let's keep the discussion on the topic of the thread. It seems to have gone back to that, but I just want to make sure ... Actually it went from Sunder to Rays because The Conversation led to the Use of The Enfeeblement Ray Spell (combined with maximized spell feat to subtract 6+1 points of strength/2 levels from the victim) to collapse strength, Power Attack Feat and the other strength 13+ Feats. We were talking about the capacity of a low level level wizard to manufacture a wand capable taking out the strength of a high level fighter and put an end to his/her ability to even use sunder. And in the end we were just discussing rays in general. Frankly until they define touch attacks (ranged touch attack) as not getting a dexterity bonus because it isnt the same as a ranged attack (proven in text) there will continue to be a problem.