Sunder vs Combat Expertise [Rules]

[sbarrie]

Am I correct in believing that Combat Expertise makes it easier for your weapon to be sundered? I don't think it should give a bonus, but a penalty for being careful seems wrong.

 

[Trodax]

Yeah, you're right, that's what the rules say...hadn't noticed that myself.
I agree, that seems pretty odd. I'd houserule that the penalty from Combat Expertise should be applied to actual attack rolls only, and not the opposed attack roll you make when someone makes a sunder attempt against you. Same thing when you oppose a disarm attempt, if you ask me.

 

[Sutek]

No, Scott. It's impossible, at least by the original edition. Read it again.

Page 165 Conan:OE
Attack action, Full Attack Action and Sunder are three separate actions that can be taken during a combat round.

Page 182 Conan:OE
The Sunder attack is made as your melee attack (first paragraph, first sentance, and follows three steps: (1) Opponent AOO, (2) Opposed Rolls, (3) Consequences. No Attack Action or Full attack actio n is taken and no true Attack Roll is made.

Page 113 Conan:OE
"When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty [to hit] and add [to DV]."

The Sunder Action would have to be taken separately. Expertise is described as "fighting cautiously" and trying to Sunder someone's weapon or shield is anything but cautious. However, one doesn't need to rely on the semantics of the Expertise Feat description as the rules for the Feat state that it is used during an "attack action or full attack action in melee". Sunder attempts are listed as a separate Standard Action in the chart on page 165 to separate the possiblility of doubling-up and this fact thus prevents the conflict you are suggesting.

However, if you wish to, it's reasonable that someone trying to "fight carefully" in order to protect himself bodily also stands a greater change of putting his own weapon in jeopardy. Trodax's suggestion seems reasonable, but it's totally unnecessary by viture of the separation of Attack Action, Full Attack Action and Sunder as distinct Standard Actions.

If this has changed between OE and AE, I'd be very surprised.

 

[AZZA]

No, Scott. It's impossible, at least by the original edition. Read it again.

Page 165 Conan:OE
Attack action, Full Attack Action and Sunder are three separate actions that can be taken during a combat round.

Page 182 Conan:OE
The Sunder attack is made as your melee attack (first paragraph, first sentance, and follows three steps: (1) Opponent AOO, (2) Opposed Rolls, (3) Consequences. No Attack Action or Full attack actio n is taken and no true Attack Roll is made.

Page 113 Conan:OE
"When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty [to hit] and add [to DV]."

The Sunder Action would have to be taken separately. Expertise is described as "fighting cautiously" and trying to Sunder someone's weapon or shield is anything but cautious. However, one doesn't need to rely on the semantics of the Expertise Feat description as the rules for the Feat state that it is used during an "attack action or full attack action in melee". Sunder attempts are listed as a separate Standard Action in the chart on page 165 to separate the possiblility of doubling-up and this fact thus prevents the conflict you are suggesting.

However, if you wish to, it's reasonable that someone trying to "fight carefully" in order to protect himself bodily also stands a greater change of putting his own weapon in jeopardy. Trodax's suggestion seems reasonable, but it's totally unnecessary by viture of the separation of Attack Action, Full Attack Action and Sunder as distinct Standard Actions.

If this has changed between OE and AE, I'd be very surprised.

I think you've got it the wrong way round Sutek. I don't think Scott is suggesting that a character is using Sunder and Expertise simmultaneously. I believe his point is that if he uses expertise his opponent may more easily sunder his weapon due to the character using expertise having a penalty on his attack roll and the resolution of a sunder attack being opposed attack rolls(a roll he gets a penalty on because he is using expertise and thus the point of his comment).

 

[Sutek]

Well, yes. Expertise still denotes an attack, albeit one that is favoring defensive positioning. It's essentially half-hearted and, while adding to the protection afforded a warrior by quickly jostling his weapon about to stay on the defensive, a strike is still being initiated. It's reasonable to assume that this strike isn't going to ordinarily deal damage to an opponent, but it's also reasonable to believe that one's opponent may opt to avoid trying to strike back at a more defensible foe in turn, instead opting for that foe's weapon.

In other words, I don't see what the problem is. Ues, DV goes up, but that's the off-set for an opponent landing a damaging blow against you. If you're opting to lose attack potential and increase your DV at the same time, something has to be left vulnerable and in this case it's the weapon/shield.

If you were to opt instead to simply Fight Defensively of go Total Defense and get those DV bonuses and attack penalties and not put your weapon/shield at greater risk, but also get no strike at your opponent. The vulnerability to the weapon is traded against still being able to cause damage potentially for the DV bonus. With Fighting Defensive (pg170 C:OE) you get a -4 attack penalty and a +2DV bonus, so risking 3 points with expertise may be better (-3 ATT, +3DV). With Total Defense (pg168, C:OE) you gain a +4DV but with no attack option (it even explicitly states that Total Defense can't combine with Expertise or Fighting Defensively). Risking 4 points with Expertise then makes for the same DV bonus, but offers a large penalty to an attack, leaving one's weapon just as vulnerable as Fighting Defeinsively but with a higher DV bonus (-4 ATT, +4DV).

In all though, the Sunder attempt from one's opponent is still an Opposed Roll and not an attack. For clarity, you elect to use Expertise, using 4 points for a -4ATT, +4DV. You swing and miss. On my turn I elect to Sunder your weapon. You get your (1) AOO against me, we then make (2) Opposed Rolls for the sunder and then (3) figure out if I break your weapon or not. The bonuse to your DV helps here because the rules for Expertise state that the benefits carry over until your next action, so the penalty to your opposed roll would apply also.

Bottom line, yes, your attack opposed roll is penalized if I attempt to Sunder your weapon, but you have a DV bonus that off-sets that penalty so it's harder for me to actually connect. However, were you to go Total Defense, you only gain DV bonus so your weapon is safer that if you were half-heartedly poking it at me while trying to remain safe.

 

[Mayhem]

Bottom line, yes, your attack opposed roll is penalized if I attempt to Sunder your weapon, but you have a DV bonus that off-sets that penalty so it's harder for me to actually connect.

Um, Sutek?

At what point in making a Sunder you roll vs your opponents DV?

******

In fact, somebody using expertise is doubly hampered vs Sunders and Disarms, since not only does he have a penalty to roll to avoid being sundered, he is also less likely to be able to hit during the Attack of Opportunity.

 

[Trodax]

In fact, somebody using expertise is doubly hampered vs Sunders and Disarms, since not only does he have a penalty to roll to avoid being sundered, he is also less likely to be able to hit during the Attack of Opportunity.

Right you are, sir.
I'd say that the penalty to the AoO could be seen as logical since it involves switching from defense to offense.
A penalty to the opposed attack roll, on the other hand, just seems wrong to me. In this case I see it more as if you are actually defending against your opponent, its just that the outcome of this defense is resolved with an opposed attack roll.

Now that I've started thinking about it, isn't it odd that your AoOs are penalised when you use Combat Expertise but not when you fight defensively or go full defense? (Or should these penalties also stay in effect 'until your next action'?)
I've always regarded Combat Expertise basically as a better version of fight defensively/full defense, but they are actually a bit different.

 

[Sutek]

Bottom line, yes, your attack opposed roll is penalized if I attempt to Sunder your weapon, but you have a DV bonus that off-sets that penalty so it's harder for me to actually connect.

Um, Sutek?

At what point in making a Sunder you roll vs your opponents DV?

******

In fact, somebody using expertise is doubly hampered vs Sunders and Disarms, since not only does he have a penalty to roll to avoid being sundered, he is also less likely to be able to hit during the Attack of Opportunity.

Again, I'm just going by what's written in the original printing, but I'd be surprised if it changed in AE as it's OGL, essentially.

To Sunder, step #2 explains that each party, initiator and opponent, make "opposed attack rolls with […] respective weapons".

If you're making an attack roll, you factor in DV (pg158, C:OE).

Now, if it's change in AE and you're aware of that, ignoring the fact that I stated I was going by original printing text is kinda rediculous.

As far as Disarm attempts, it's the same thing: Each opponent makes an Attack Roll and that is a d20 roll versus opposition DV.

 

[Sutek]

Now that I've started thinking about it, isn't it odd that your AoOs are penalised when you use Combat Expertise but not when you fight defensively or go full defense? (Or should these penalties also stay in effect 'until your next action'?)
I've always regarded Combat Expertise basically as a better version of fight defensively/full defense, but they are actually a bit different.

I should say that it sounds odd, because it's illegal for Total Defense.

Page 168 C:OE, last sentance prohibits use of attacks of opportunity if you declare Total Defense.

I don't think it necessarily sounds odd that AOOs woul dbe allowed if Fighting Defensively, because you're still fighting. The -4 penalty to "all attacks" obviously includes AOOs. (pg170, C:OE)

 

[Trodax]

To Sunder, step #2 explains that each party, initiator and opponent, make "opposed attack rolls with […] respective weapons".

If you're making an attack roll, you factor in DV (pg158, C:OE).

"Opposed attack rolls" I've always taken as meaning: both guys roll 1d20 and add their "to hit"-score, the one who rolls highest wins. Therefore, DV is not a part of this opposed roll.

Don't have the book in front of me, so I can't check the reference you gave. Do you mean that both guys should roll a regular "to hit"-roll (with DV as DC) and then compare the difference of their rolls? I don't think this is correct, but if it is, it changes things quite a bit. If so, it will be more difficult to disarm/sunder someone who is good at dodging or who has a shield. This, I guess, could be argued that it's in some way logical, but what would get really strange is that in regular D&D, someone with heavy armour will be harder to disarm...

 

[Trodax]

Page 168 C:OE, last sentance prohibits use of attacks of opportunity if you declare Total Defense.)

Ooops, I must have missed that...

I don't think it necessarily sounds odd that AOOs woul dbe allowed if Fighting Defensively, because you're still fighting. The -4 penalty to "all attacks" obviously includes AOOs. (pg170, C:OE)

I guess I need to check my references, what I thought was that fighting defensively/full defense didn't say anything about the penalty lasting until your next turn. Obviously the DV-bonus must keep being in effect though, so I guess you're right.
Sorry if I mucked it up.

 

[Sutek]

Nah...it's no big deal. I've just been looking at 3.X OGL stuff for a while now and me and my group have etermined that the really pertinenet caveat seems to always be in the very last freaking sentance of any given rule. (lol) It's crazy. I think they do it on purpose...

Actually, I'm certain it's an editting thing - they write the rule and then tag on the caveats and specificity to square it away with other related rules afterwards.

Anyway, don't feel too bad because it could definitely be clearer, but I think a lot of the 3.XOGL stuff could use an extra page or three worth of finalizing senataces and connective text to makes stuff crystal clear. I mean, really - crop an illustration a little more just so it's dead certain, ya know? I think we're meant to figure stuff like this out on our own, but it's the one thing that makes 3.X OGL rules so darned difficult for newbies to get into - there's so much connectivity and interrelation that it can get very confusing. Heck, I'd missed the "multiple combatants" thing at the back end of the combat section entirely and that one set of short paragraphs changes massed combat in a huge way - boy did I feel like a doofus.

 

[Trodax]

Nah...it's no big deal. I've just been looking at 3.X OGL stuff for a while now and me and my group have etermined that the really pertinenet caveat seems to always be in the very last freaking sentance of any given rule. (lol) It's crazy. I think they do it on purpose...

You should check out Exalted; very cool game, but interpreting the rules can at times give you massive headaches.

Anyways, I checked out the rules for fighting defensively/full defense, and you were indeed correct; their effects are stated as lasting for a full round.

That means the discussion we've been having about how Combat Expertise interacts with sunder/disarm also applies to fighting defensively/full defense.
So, when fighting defensively you will get -4 on your AoO against someone attempting to sunder/disarm you, and (possibly) -4 on the opposed attack roll to resist the attempt.
With full defense it gets a bit weird because you are not allowed an AoO but then get the opposed attack roll without penalty (I guess?).

In my opinion (as I've stated above) the penalty from Combat Expertise/fighting defensively should be applied to the AoO, but not to the opposed attack roll.

 

[Mayhem]

To Sunder, step #2 explains that each party, initiator and opponent, make "opposed attack rolls with […] respective weapons".

If you're making an attack roll, you factor in DV (pg158, C:OE).

"Opposed attack rolls" I've always taken as meaning: both guys roll 1d20 and add their "to hit"-score, the one who rolls highest wins. Therefore, DV is not a part of this opposed roll.

Thats how I read it too. Opposed rolls are made against each other, not against a static value, and the highest wins. Anything else would be unnecessary and overcomplicated.

In my opinion (as I've stated above) the penalty from Combat Expertise/fighting defensively should be applied to the AoO, but not to the opposed attack roll.

Agreed.

 

[Sutek]

With full defense it gets a bit weird because you are not allowed an AoO but then get the opposed attack roll without penalty (I guess?).

Nope, you just dont' get one, but you do get the +4 bonus to DV which makes it that much harder to be sundered.

In my opinion (as I've stated above) the penalty from Combat Expertise/fighting defensively should be applied to the AoO, but not to the opposed attack roll.

Eh.. :? ...possibly, but you just have to think of stuff like Sunder and Grapple and Disarm as being "out of phase" with normal combat structure. Normal for d20 is that each opponent gets to swing and the d20 attack roll is kept separate for each combatant, representing only effective strikes rather than actual number of swipes or whatever. It's normally representing the idea of "did the accumulation of my best attempts ammount o anything" and whether in actulality it was one huge swing or 9 little jabs, that single roll of the d20 represents total effectiveness for that brief moment of combat.

The Opposed Attack Roll things are odd exceptions to this in that they tend to seem to represent the "single blow" theory more than jsut regular strikes do. One roll versus another roll really feels much more like "I swing, you swing" when in reality it's still that abstraction of "the accumulation of best attempts", jsut that each combattant gets to figure it out right away. I personally feel it pulls out of the normal game mechanic too much. Why not off opposed rolls for everything? Well, it'd slow things down too much so under OGL rules it was decided to minimize these odd bits and make special rules for them.

<house rule>
I think it should count as a static object that you're striking, pure and simple. The DV of the target combatant shoud be taken into account as should size factors for medium, small and tiny, but realistically no one is in a fight to protect thier weapon and, realistically, weapons like this broke all the time. Swords snapped in half on a regular basis which is why knights and the like were traind to use the guard, the pommel - everything - to deal damage in combat. The broken weapon rules back up this notion really well, and the fact that in Conan's world, armor and treasure is regularly sold of for a good sword.

Realistically too, a small weapon like a knife would never be sundered. It would just be knocked free of the combatant's grip before it broke. Flexible weapons like chains and leather whips would flex if attacked and would really not be easy to cut unless the time was taken to do so; they'd also be more succeptible to disarms than sundering.

Way I plan to handle Sunder or Disarms probably to just call it a "on/off" choice and if you're swinging to Sunder in a given round, your DV is jeopardized but weapon on weapon damage is increased, probably double STR bonus is all. Damage is dealt to opponent weapons first and any overage goes to the opponent. The DV penalty will be equal to STR bonus in this case. This emulates the stronger swings and concentration on hitting opponent weapons to break them rather than merely trying to hit an opponent or defending yourself properly with your own weapon.

Example:
In a combat round, I elect to "go sunder mode" and, with STR bonus +3 will subtract 3 from my DV but add +3 to damage. If I hit, anyone, damage is dealt to thier weapon first and if it's enough to get past hardness, it breaks and overage goes into the wielder of the now broken weapon.
</house rule>

 

[Trodax]

With full defense it gets a bit weird because you are not allowed an AoO but then get the opposed attack roll without penalty (I guess?).

Nope, you just dont' get one, but you do get the +4 bonus to DV which makes it that much harder to be sundered.

Actually the description of full defense doesn't say that you can't make attack rolls until your next action, it just says you don't get any AoO. Since full defense comsumes a standard action to activate, you won't be able to attack during your turn, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of the round (except AoO).

Also, as I've stated above, in my understanding of the rules the opposed attack roll doesn't use DV, in fact, it doesn't have a DC at all. If one of the participants in an opposed attack roll wouldn't be able to roll for some reason (as you say is the case here), his opponent would automatically win.

 

[Sutek]

Actually the description of full defense doesn't say that you can't make attack rolls until your next action, it just says you don't get any AoO. Since full defense comsumes a standard action to activate, you won't be able to attack during your turn, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of the round (except AoO).

And how, exactly, would one attack in the 'rest of the round" if AOOs are prohibited and the Total Defense action itself eats up the Standard Action you'd use for attacking? Even if you get up to multiple attacks per round (eg the +6/+1 range) due to character level, then you still have to use a Full Attack option to get all those attacks. Additional attacks due to TWF are bonus attacks to a normal Attack Action, so you wouldn't get those unless you opted to take an Attack Action.

It's pretty water tight. If you choose to go with Total Defense, you have to do so using a Standard Action, which means you cannot be taking Full Acttack Action or any other Attack action that is listed in the "standard" classification. You can still make Move Actions, but it pretty much locks you into not making any attacks. The reason for it only using up a Standard Action is so you aren't prohibited from doing other things restricted by Full Round Actions.

 

[Trodax]

And how, exactly, would one attack in the 'rest of the round" if AOOs are prohibited and the Total Defense action itself eats up the Standard Action you'd use for attacking?

You cannot, of course. All I'm saying is that nothing prohibits you from making an attack roll, if someone for example makes a sunder or disarm attempt against you (above you said that someone using total defense wouldn't get such a roll).
Sorry if what I meant was unclear.

 

[Sutek]

Oh...I see. Yeah.

No the attack roll you get isn't even a bonus one - it's just one afforded you by virtue of your oponent doing something wacky and putting himself in jeopardy (also called an AoO - ).

AoO arent' ever lost unless a manuver or feat or other combat action tells you it is. As a matter of fact, I thin Total Defense is one of the very rare exceptions to not being allowed an AoO.

 

[Trodax]

No the attack roll you get isn't even a bonus one - it's just one afforded you by virtue of your oponent doing something wacky and putting himself in jeopardy (also called an AoO - ).

Damn, I made myself unclear again.
I'm so blaming it on my barbarian heritage - us heathens ain't to good with da words. :wink:

The attack roll I was referring to was the opposed attack roll you make when someone makes a sunder/disarm attempt against you (after the outcome of the AoO is determined).

So, in essence, when you go total defense and someone tries to sunder/disarm you: 1) you don't get an AoO against him, but 2) you do make the opposed attack roll as normal.

And this is where I think it gets weird; total defense doesn't restrict this opposed attack roll (since it's not an AoO), so I assume it's made without penalty. If I'm using Combat Expertise or fighting defensively, on the other hand, I have penalty to my attack rolls, and it could then be argued that this penalty should be applied to my opposed attack rolls as well as my regular attacks and AoO (this assumption is the basis of this thread).

That someone using Combat Expertise or fighting defensively should be easier to sunder/disarm than someone fighting normally or going total defense, seems odd to me. My solution to this "problem" is that the opposed attack roll to resist sunder/disarm should not be affected by any of these "defensive fighting modes".