| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| eudas04-25-05, 12:34 PM | Help me check my math on this. So, I have a fighter 4/paladin 4 with the following feat selection: WF (longsword) Power Attack Cleave Improved Sunder Improved Shield Bash WS (longsword) Leadership The character has the following stats: 14str 12dex 14con 10int 14wis 16cha The DMG text for Shatterspike says that wielders with the improved sunder feat get a +4 bonus to the attack roll (including its enhancement bonus). Shatterspike has a +1 enhancement bonus. The PHB text for Improved sunder says that you get a +4 bonus on sunder attempts. The PHB text for Sunder says that it is an opposed attack roll. So, what I'm looking for help on is my calculation. What should my attack and damage rolls be for sundering? Specificially, 1) Should I add the +1 enhancement bonus, or is this bonus absorbed by another one of the bonuses? 2) Is the DMG text on Shatterspike re-iterating what Imp Sunder already says, or is it providing another unnamed bonus (which would then stack)? Thus far, I'm calculating that the to-hit would be +16 (+8(bab) +2(str) +1(unnamed,wfocus) +4(unnamed,imp sunder) +1(enhancement,shatterspike)) and the to-dam would be 1d8+8 (1d8 +4(enhancement,shatterspike) +2(str) +2(unnamed,wspec)). Is this right? eudas ps: re-reading my question, i think i answered my own questions: 1) enhancement bonus should be added in; 2) the DMG text is just re-iterating what Imp Sunder does, so there's no duplicate bonus there. so, +16 on the opposed attack roll to sunder and 1d8+8 damage if it hits. as always, correct me if i'm wrong. cheers, eudas pps: just crunching a few more numbers for pure mathematical enjoyment of it... I have a cloak which is command-word activated. It grants divine favor as per the spell, with a +2 luck bonus to hit and damage. So, with that activated, my "normal" numbers go up to +18 hit and 1d8+10 dam. Here's some further number crunching: PA=8, 1h hit: +18 - 8PA = +10 dam: 1d8+10 +8 = 1d8 +18 PA=8, 2h hit: +18 -8PA = +10 dam: 1d8 +[1.5(+2str)] + 4enhancement +2wspec +[2*8PA] +2luck = 1d8 +3 +4 +2 +16 +2 = 1d8 +27 PA=8, 1h, critical hit hit: +18 -8PA = +10 dam: 2d8 +36 PA=8, 2h, critical hit hit: +18 -8PA = +10 dam: 2d8 +54 in comparison, shatterspike itself has hardness 11, hp 6, so a good solid hit of +17dam or higher would break it. a hit with a 1h PA=8 would break it... and then there's Combat Brute(Sundering Cleave) to get later. wow. eudas |
| Mike The Slayer04-26-05, 08:00 PM | Wow now i fell stupid. i broke/lost the shatter spike. |
| eudas04-26-05, 11:00 PM | it's actually a really nice weapon. i'd planned to go this route anyway, but this makes it just that little bit nicer. thanks for the input! eudas |
| Colmarr04-26-05, 11:30 PM | Shatterspike: Wielders without the Improved Sunder feat use Shatterspike as a +1 longsword only; wielders with the Improved Sunder feat add a +4 bonus (including the sword’s +1 enhancement bonus) to the opposed roll when attempting to strike a foe’s weapon. If successful, Shatterspike deals 1d8+4 points of damage plus the wielder’s Strength modifier to the target weapon (the target weapon’s hardness must still be overcome with each hit). Shatterspike can damage weapons with an enhancement bonus of +4 or lower. I think it is a little odd that the rules for a magic item repeat the rules for a feat. Further, if your interpretation is correct, Shatterspike is in fact worse at inflicting a sunder than another +1 sword. (Although it does do more damage when it does hit). How do I figure that? Well, an attacker with Improved Sunder and a +1 longsword rolls (ignoring BAB and str) d20 + 1 (enhancement) +4 (feat) = d20 +5. By your interpretation, the same wielder with Shatterspike rolls only d20 + 4 (feat/shatterspike). So, my interpretation is that Shatterspike counts as a +4 weapon whenever making an opposed roll as part of a sunder action. Shatterspike also adds 4 to damage rolls related to sunder attempts. So, your sample character would roll d20 + 8 (BAB) + 4 (enhancement) +4 (Improved Sunder) +1 (weapon focus) + 2 (Strength) = d20 + 19 to attack, and d8 + 8 for damage. This may seem out of control, but bear in mind that the weapon is being wielded by an 8th level character who is specifically kitted out for this manouevre. Even then, a +1 longsword has hardness 12 and 15 hit points, so you'll need to dump a lot into Power Attack (approx 7 points if wielding a weapon two-handed) to get a "one hit kill", and by doing so you've lessened your chance of hitting in the first place. A +2 longsword (the pricing equivalent of Shatterspike) has hardness 14 and 25 hitpoints, so you'd need to dump 14 points into power attack to have a reasonable chance of a "one hit kill". |
| eudas04-27-05, 12:55 PM | Oh, i see. They could have been a lot clearer in the description and just said that Shatterspike is a +1 longsword that is treated as having a +4 enhancement bonus for purposes of sundering. So, I think you're right. I was treating Shatterspike as a +4 enhancement bonus on the damage (correct), but only as a +1 enhancement bonus on the opposed attack roll (incorrect). Treating it as +4 enhancement for both rolls (which makes sense) brings it up from +16 to +19 on the opposed attack roll and 1d8 +8 damage. Then, I can add the cloak of divine favor (+2 luck bonus to hit and damage) and any power attack modifiers. Thanks for the clarification! One followup question: How'd you calculate the hardness/hp? I must've done something wrong, but I need some clarification on that issue. I think I arrived at hardness 11/hp 6 because a normal longsword has hardness 10/hp 5 per the PHB, and the DMG says magical weapons receive +1 hardness and +1hp per point of enhancement bonus. Can you tell me where I went wrong there? eudas p.s. revised my numbers (cloak of divine favor, provides +2 luck bonus to hit and dam, is activated): to-hit would be +21 (+8(bab) +2(str) +1(unnamed,wfocus) +4(unnamed,imp sunder) +4(enhancement,shatterspike)) +2luck. PA=8, 1h hit: +21 - 8PA = +13 dam: 1d8+10 +8 = 1d8 +18 PA=8, 2h hit: +21 - 8PA = +13 dam: 1d8 +[1.5(+2str)] + 4enhancement +2wspec +[2*8PA] +2luck = 1d8 +3 +4 +2 +16 +2 = 1d8 +27 PA=8, 1h, critical hit hit: +21 - 8PA = +13 dam: 2d8 +36 PA=8, 2h, critical hit hit: +21 - 8PA = +13 dam: 2d8 +54 eudas |
| Colmarr04-28-05, 03:15 AM | The hardness/hit points issue has been dealt with in the FAQ and errata: 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 (see page 165). Both of these corrections are noted in the Dungeon Master’s Guide errata file. Incidentally, Divine Favor has been errataed: Divine Favor Player’s Handbook, page 224. Changes to the spell’s description are noted in boldface type: Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3). I don't think the errata affects your calculations, but I thought I'd point it out. As a similar aside, unless you paid extra for the cloak to have a caster level of 6 rather than 1, it only provides a bonus of +1, not +2. |
| Aeromus04-28-05, 04:16 AM | You get: +8 BaB +2 Str Bonus +1 Weapon Focus (Long Sword) +4 Improved Sunder Feat +4 Enhancement Bonus of Shatterspike (This replaces it's normal +1 bonus) =+19 to hit. You get: +2 str Bonus +4 Enchancement Bonus from Shatterspike (This replaces it's normal +1 bonus) +2 Weapon Specialization (Long Sword) =+8 to damage. Hope that helps. Edit : Shatterspije is considered a +4 magic sword, when used to sunder, or resist sundering. |
| EvilVegan04-28-05, 03:20 PM | Edit : Shatterspije is considered a +4 magic sword, when used to sunder, or resist sundering. Does that include weapon hitpoints? |
| eudas04-28-05, 03:57 PM | don't think so, but it is a valid question. eudas |
| eudas04-28-05, 04:16 PM | Incidentally, Divine Favor has been errataed: (snip) I don't think the errata affects your calculations, but I thought I'd point it out. As a similar aside, unless you paid extra for the cloak to have a caster level of 6 rather than 1, it only provides a bonus of +1, not +2. Well, the DM said that it provides a +2 bonus, so I assume that the maker of the cloak made it at CL6. Rather an expensive item, really. But thanks for the Divine Favor errata (i'd run into that before, when i was making my Cleric Cohort), and thanks especially for the Sunder/Hardness/HP errata! Now I get to go back and re-calculate all the hardness/hp for my char's weaps/shields and cohort's weaps/shields. :) eudas |
| Colmarr04-28-05, 05:42 PM | EvilVegan: no. The actual text of shatterspike is quoted in one of my earlier posts. The +4 bonus is clearly stated to only apply to "the opposed roll when attempting to strike a foe’s weapon." The only such opposed roll in a sunder attempt is the attack roll. |
| eudas05-02-05, 11:27 AM | Ok, so I've got all the correct numbers now, fixed all my math, and updated all my weapons' hardness/hp values. I've also communicated this information out to my group, so we can all be on the same page as far as Sundering goes. It's also helped to prompt us to check up on the PHB/DMG errata and the v3.5 FAQ to make sure that other issues are up-to-date. I appreciate the assistance that you have all lent to me. Thanks very much! eudas |