In Athas.org's excellent 3.5 adaptation for Dark Sun they gave us a somehwhat simplified system but still very much along the same lines. However, they made all the athas-specific weapons (Trikal, wrist-razor, etc.) non-metallic, and in many ways they were very much superior to normal weapons. Also, weapons like the Macahuitl and the Slodak have the same stats as metal versions of regular weapons, making shortswords, longswords and greatswords of metal not inherently better.
In my own campaign, I think to use this variant, and I would like opinions about it. All weapons from bone and stone use the weapon hardness and hp value as in 3.5 Dark Sun but hit at no penalty to attack and damage.
Metal versions of any weapon in which it would be an improvement (including athas-specific weapons such as the wrist-razor, the trikal and the alhulak) have their damage increased by one dice increment (use the same rules as increasing a weapon's size), so for example a metal longsword would do D10 damage.
I know this isn't a huge change, and by the higher levels the actual dice used to determine a weapon's damage is of little importance compared to the bonuses, but at the lower to mid-levels, at which a metal weapon should be a rare and valueable arifact, this gives it an actual edge over non-metal variants.
Any thoughts?
Think of a mul army captain with lots of Str, and Improved Sunder and Mobility. If he has a metal trikal, for example, he can wade into enemy troops and sunder the hell out of bone and stone weapons, then move out to other targets with weak weapons, leaving the defenseless attackers to be picked out by the troops behind him.
In either case, sunder is never used by my players. Maybe I should give them a taste of it to see how well they like it (and maybe they will pick up on it
I might still have my metal weapons have that extra edge. That's what house rules are for after all.
Maybe I should give them a taste of it to see how well they like it (and maybe they will pick up on it
The upcoming Athasian Emporium has the shatter weapon special ability, which runs a chance of destroying bone, wood, or stone weapons. Another plus for having metal weapons.
Expect to see a few more spelcasters/psions rolled up if sunder starts getting used alot.
Plus there are a bunch of creatures with DR/metal or DR/adamantine (which translates as dwarven steel in DS), goven prominence specifically to add extra value to metal weapons.
Sunder is a great way to get across the value of metal weapons. One player in my last group used it as his primary opening tactic in every battle.
Sunder is one of those things where I'm constantly amazed it *isn't* used more often than it is...but then again, I haven't thrown my group up against a bunch of inexpensive-weapon-using opponents, so that could always be part of the problem. ;)
Plus there are a bunch of creatures with DR/metal or DR/adamantine (which translates as dwarven steel in DS), goven prominence specifically to add extra value to metal weapons.
On that subject, one of the things I'd like to see in future revision(s) to Terrors of Athas/Terrors of the Deadlands are more DR/metal creatures. Even relatively minor DR's, like 5/metal or even just 3/metal, would be a nice touch - something that's fairly easy to justify for a lot of creatures and wouldn't have an extreme impact on groups that didn't have any metal weapons, but would definitely make the metal weapons a much greater incentive than they are under the current rules.
Sunder is one of those things where I'm constantly amazed it *isn't* used more often than it is...but then again, I haven't thrown my group up against a bunch of inexpensive-weapon-using opponents, so that could always be part of the problem. ;)
On that subject, one of the things I'd like to see in future revision(s) to Terrors of Athas/Terrors of the Deadlands are more DR/metal creatures. Even relatively minor DR's, like 5/metal or even just 3/metal, would be a nice touch - something that's fairly easy to justify for a lot of creatures and wouldn't have an extreme impact on groups that didn't have any metal weapons, but would definitely make the metal weapons a much greater incentive than they are under the current rules.
Theres a reason for that. PCs using it are destroying their own loot. Suder NPC Fighters sword and then you find out its a +2 weapon worth 8000 gp/cp. It also sucks up two feats which non fighters often have trouble justifying although most warrior builds tend to take power attack anyway I suppose.
My PCs rarely take it and only use it in extreme circumstances (barbarian/frenzied berzerker with a Greataxe going nuts etc)
Theres a reason for that. PCs using it are destroying their own loot. Suder NPC Fighters sword and then you find out its a +2 weapon worth 8000 gp/cp. It also sucks up two feats which non fighters often have trouble justifying although most warrior builds tend to take power attack anyway I suppose.
I´ve been wondering whether a magical weapon can be sundered, especially if using a non-magical weapon. Does anyone have rules support on this matter?
I´ve been wondering whether a magical weapon can be sundered, especially if using a non-magical weapon. Does anyone have rules support on this matter?
Yes but IIRC magical weapons increase the hardness and hitpoints of a weapon. Adamantine weapons are nasty as hell for wrecking other weapons as they ignore up to 20 points of hardness so een +5 greatswords are easy enough to destroy.
Sunder, Mordenkainens Disjunction and Rustmonsters are some of the most feared things in D&D as they distroy equipment although Rust monsters and Adamantine sundering character builds wont be very common on Athas:P. My PCs almost killed me once when they encountered a raging barbarian with sunder and an Adamantine greatsword THink he destroyed most of the PCs best weapons and to be honest I'll never use that again and sunder is semi banned in my games. Its a screw the PC feat really.
I´ve been wondering whether a magical weapon can be sundered, especially if using a non-magical weapon. Does anyone have rules support on this matter?
IIRC enhancement bonuses add up to one or more of the stats of a weapon, such as hardness and hps. It either says so in the sundering rules in the PHB, or in the introduction to magic weapons in the DMG.
Theres a reason for that. PCs using it are destroying their own loot. Suder NPC Fighters sword and then you find out its a +2 weapon worth 8000 gp/cp. It also sucks up two feats which non fighters often have trouble justifying although most warrior builds tend to take power attack anyway I suppose.
The DM is in control of things, ensuring priceless items or plot facilitators will not be sundered.
What you're describing here is the same as a DM that takes all the gear value of an NPC, as described in the DMG, and transforms it into combat gear like potions, and then puts the encounter in the PCs' way just so that the NPC can burn all the Cp value of his gear by drinking it. Only way the PCs can loot the encounter is by having an assassin or the likes in their team.
Theres a reason for that. PCs using it are destroying their own loot. Suder NPC Fighters sword and then you find out its a +2 weapon worth 8000 gp/cp. It also sucks up two feats which non fighters often have trouble justifying although most warrior builds tend to take power attack anyway I suppose.
My PCs rarely take it and only use it in extreme circumstances (barbarian/frenzied berzerker with a Greataxe going nuts etc)
That's the reason I pointed out "inexpensive-weapon-using opponents" - you're not going to use sunder on leader-types and such, but when going up against rank-and-file opponents, weapon-using humanoid monsters such as gith, etc. the odds are much reduced that you'll be destroying something worthwhile.
I´ve been wondering whether a magical weapon can be sundered, especially if using a non-magical weapon. Does anyone have rules support on this matter?
From the SRD:
"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. Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points."
The same rule does not apply to shields, however. In their case, each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points, but there is no rule about requiring equivalent enhancement bonuses to sunder.
Edit: And, being suspicious of this ruling on magic weapons, I double-checked. It's an errata - you don't need an equivalent enhancement bonus to sunder a magic weapon. Any weapon can sunder any other weapon (clarified in the FAQ. Thought that rang a warning bell
... )So in theory a half-giant with a chopstick could sunder the Scorcher? :P
Artifacts are generally considered to be indestructable but it would depend I suppose. Its not usually worth using sunder fighting mooks as they tend to be easy enough to kill anyway. Sunder is quite good vs dumb beatstick monsters like giants who use weapons. Odds are their equipment is non magical and even if it is it is to big for most PCs to use anyway.
So in theory a half-giant with a chopstick could sunder the Scorcher? :P
Well, the Scorcher (as a longsword with a +6 enhancement bonus) has at least hardness 22 and 65 hit points (and probably lots more, given that it was made from Red Handwavium...) but in theory, yes, a chopstick would be fine :D.
Oh, OK then, maybe not. PHB p165 does say "The DM may determine that certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, you may have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a robe with a club." So I guess if you wanted to be a spoilsport, you could rule that chopsticks are ineffective against Red Handwavium weapons crafted by Rajaat ;)...
What if I swap the chopstick with an erdland drumstick? Would that be an appropriate weapon? And besides, who said it was a regular chopstick? It´s a chopstick +1.
Yes, I would allow that. Either an erdland drumstick (uncooked) or a +1 chopstick would be sufficient to sunder the Scorcher.
Oh good lord, get on with the metal!Oh good lord, get on with the metal!
Suppose it was a non-magical iron chopstick?
Suppose it was a non-magical iron chopstick?
Actually, the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that oriental-style implements like the chopstick fit the DS setting. We don't have the monk class in DS canon, after all, and there's no precedence for chopsticks in the 2e material. I think it might wreck the campaign if you allowed chopsticks. I'm going to ban them in my games.
You could use an iron spoon, though. There is strong precedence in the DS material for spoons.
You could use an iron spoon, though. There is strong precedence in the DS material for spoons.
On a side note, I might implement a house rule in my game that states something like this
When sundering, if you are sundering a weapon of higher quality construction or material, then your weapon suffers half of the sundering damage that you inflict.
This way, when sundering scorcher with a club, the club is more likely to break in the attempt. If the enhancement bonus of the attacking weapon is at least equal to the target weapon, then only the target weapon takes the damage.
For quality and material, I would probably go
Bone/Wood < Stone < Metal < Dwarven Steel < Red Handwavium? (Last I checked, Scorcher was an unknown material. What is this handwavium stuff?)
Masterwork kicks it up a notch. So a Masterwork Bone weapon could sunder stone without suffering damage itself.
Granted, I might adjust the order of the bone/wood/stone but not sure yet.