Sunder vs Combat Expertise [Rules]

[AZZA]

This is an interesting discussion. It hasn't come up in my game as yet but since one of the characters has combat expertise it could well, so its good to make a ruling on this now rather than on the spot.
My take is a little different than the the rest of the thread however. I've had a good think about it and have decided in favour of the defender. I will explain how and my reasoning behind it.
Combat Expertise: Rather than impose a penalty for the the opposed roll for the character using combat expertise I will allow them to add the defence amount to their opposed roll.
This bonus will also apply to Parry or Dodge as an added bonus, fighting defensively, full defense and even intricate swordplay(basically any thing that adds to defence).
Reasoning: If a character is defensively minded and sacraficing their attack, or have extra defensive experience then their is no reason why this shouldn't apply to them when being sundered/disarmed. If my enemy was trying to sunder an item I am wearing all the above defences would hinder him so why not when he is attcking my shield or weapon?
I dont subscribe to the idea that because I have a penalty on my attack roll I am making a weak attack(Power attack?) as my attack does the same amount of damage as normal. I also don't believe weapons break as easily as they are made out. Swords are designed to parry other swords and shields aren't easily cloven in two. Weapon breakage in d20 is a fantasy mechanic. Weapon breackage in the Conan stories is artistic licence and dramatic. Knights didn't carry half a dozens swords with them to battle because they are going to break.

If you do apply the penalty to the opposed roll your going to have players who might want to fight defensively all readying an action. I ready against being attacked. So if I am attacked I can choose to expertise/ fight defensively but if he attacks my weapon I am fighting normaly. Silly

Just my opinion.
Aaron

 

[Trodax]

Combat Expertise: Rather than impose a penalty for the the opposed roll for the character using combat expertise I will allow them to add the defence amount to their opposed roll.

This does make sense in my ears. When someone makes a sunder or disarm attempt against you, I see the opposed attack roll that you get to make as a form of defense (its just that you make a roll with your "to hit"-score instead of using your DV as is usual). I feel very strongly that there should not be a penalty to this roll for fighting defensively, whether or not adding a bonus is appropriate, I don't know.
Actually sunder or disarm have not been used that much in the games I've played, so I don't really know how effective they are. Giving a bonus for defensive fighting will make sunder and disarm a bit weaker, and Combat Expertise a (little) bit stronger. However, you will still have the disadvantage that your AoO are penalised (though I guess most sunder/disarm attempts will come from someone with the Feat Improved Sunder/Disarm, so maybe its not that big of a deal).

This bonus will also apply to Parry or Dodge as an added bonus, fighting defensively, full defense and even intricate swordplay(basically any thing that adds to defence).

(Bold by me)

Parry or Dodge as an added bonus. :?: I assume you are talking about the bonus you get from the Feats Dodge or Parry. You don't mean that you would get to add your Base Dodge/Parry that you get from your Class, do you? (Because that would really change things around)

If you do apply the penalty to the opposed roll your going to have players who might want to fight defensively all readying an action. I ready against being attacked. So if I am attacked I can choose to expertise/ fight defensively but if he attacks my weapon I am fighting normaly. Silly

Very silly indeed. Not that I can really see this happening in the games I play, but just that the possibility is there makes me want to make the ruling so that it is impossible.

 

[AZZA]

Parry or Dodge as an added bonus. :?: I assume you are talking about the bonus you get from the Feats Dodge or Parry. You don't mean that you would get to add your Base Dodge/Parry that you get from your Class, do you? (Because that would really change things around)

Yeah the feats. Doesn't it seem odd that as the defender of a sunder or disarm attack that your weapon focus feat, an attack bonus, aids you in what is basically a defensive situation but your defensive feats don't?

If you do apply the penalty to the opposed roll your going to have players who might want to fight defensively all readying an action. I ready against being attacked. So if I am attacked I can choose to expertise/ fight defensively but if he attacks my weapon I am fighting normaly. Silly

Very silly indeed. Not that I can really see this happening in the games I play, but just that the possibility is there makes me want to make the ruling so that it is impossible.

How about this situation. The characters are up against the Big baddie. he is an expert swordsman with parry, expertise and intricate swordsman. He is parrying and using his expertise for full value as he is fighting the four PC's simultaneously. It is an exciting, hard fight, the players are having a hard time at hitting him until one realises..."Hey fred, your attacking him last in the round. Sunder his weapon, he will be at -5 on the opposed roll and you will be at +3 because of multiple attackers." Suddenly your expert swordsman is suddenly totally incompetant, his weapon is sundered and he is in alot of trouble.

Even if you don't apply the penalty to the defender but give him no bonus for his defensive ability on the opposed roll a character with expertise, parry, 18 CHA and Intricate swordsman is loosing abetween 5-10 pts on his defense just because his opponent is attacking his weapon/shield instead of him. Does that seem fair?

 

[Sutek]

If you do apply the penalty to the opposed roll your going to have players who might want to fight defensively all readying an action. I ready against being attacked. So if I am attacked I can choose to expertise/ fight defensively but if he attacks my weapon I am fighting normaly. Silly

Except what you're forgetting is that each roll of the d20 is representative of a number of successive strikes, and if some of those strikes land to do damage, then the roll represents this potentiality. That's why damage values are random too. You aren't talking about one swing each, but the opposed roll makes it seem like that's what your talking about. Youstill have to thin k of the opposed roll as multiple strikes, of which one or more may be effective enough to succeed. In the case we're talking about, Sundering an opponent's weapon, it could be several hard bashes that eventually break the weapon.

My problem with this, that none of you have mentioned, is that if I take swings to break Trodax's sword, shouldn't my sword be just as likely to break? In the current Sunder system, there's no "equity of result" in this way. Trip Attacks are a good example of "result equity" where I try to trip Trodax, but if I fail he can instantly try to trip me.

How about this situation. The characters are up against the Big baddie. he is an expert swordsman with parry, expertise and intricate swordsman. He is parrying and using his expertise for full value as he is fighting the four PC's simultaneously. It is an exciting, hard fight, the players are having a hard time at hitting him until one realises..."Hey fred, your attacking him last in the round. Sunder his weapon, he will be at -5 on the opposed roll and you will be at +3 because of multiple attackers." Suddenly your expert swordsman is suddenly totally incompetant, his weapon is sundered and he is in alot of trouble.

Even if you don't apply the penalty to the defender but give him no bonus for his defensive ability on the opposed roll a character with expertise, parry, 18 CHA and Intricate swordsman is loosing abetween 5-10 pts on his defense just because his opponent is attacking his weapon/shield instead of him. Does that seem fair?

You'v egot it all worng. DV is taken into account. At least if I understand you example. The only penalty that I see being corrent is the "surrounded by enemies" penalty, which is cumulative the more enemies that are surrounding the baddie. His DV is in effect as are and penalties or bonuses to attack or defense from feats or circumstance.

You guys are making this much more complicated than it actually is...

 

[Mayhem]

By my understanding, an opposed attack roll *doesn't* use DV. The two attack rolls are compared, highest wins, no DV.

If DV is taken into account, what is an "Opposed attack roll?"

Do both participants roll vs their opponents DV? What happens if both miss? What happens if both hit?

 

[sbarrie]

If you do apply the penalty to the opposed roll your going to have players who might want to fight defensively all readying an action. I ready against being attacked. So if I am attacked I can choose to expertise/ fight defensively but if he attacks my weapon I am fighting normaly. Silly

Except what you're forgetting is that each roll of the d20 is representative of a number of successive strikes, and if some of those strikes land to do damage, then the roll represents this potentiality. That's why damage values are random too. You aren't talking about one swing each, but the opposed roll makes it seem like that's what your talking about. Youstill have to thin k of the opposed roll as multiple strikes, of which one or more may be effective enough to succeed. In the case we're talking about, Sundering an opponent's weapon, it could be several hard bashes that eventually break the weapon.

Sure, but how does that interpretation change anything?

My problem with this, that none of you have mentioned, is that if I take swings to break Trodax's sword, shouldn't my sword be just as likely to break?

If you punch somebody in the face, should you get hurt as bad as the person being punched? No. Some parts of you are better build to withstand impacts. Same with weapons. See bending moment and shear stress.

In the current Sunder system, there's no "equity of result" in this way. Trip Attacks are a good example of "result equity" where I try to trip Trodax, but if I fail he can instantly try to trip me.

A free countersunder if you don't have the feat wouldn't be bad.

You'v egot it all worng. DV is taken into account. At least if I understand you example. The only penalty that I see being corrent is the "surrounded by enemies" penalty, which is cumulative the more enemies that are surrounding the baddie. His DV is in effect as are and penalties or bonuses to attack or defense from feats or circumstance.

Taking DV into account is just silly. Opposed attack rolls means you compare your skill with handling a weapon to your opponents skill with handling a weapon. Why would an attacker with a high DV be more capably of hitting an opponent's weapon than one with a low DV?

The defender makes a attack roll, setting the DC for the attacker. The attacker makes an attack roll against that DC.

Frankly I think a light weapon in the defender's hands should be harder to sunder than a two-handed weapon (that it, harder to connect with to do damage to), but I believe the rules say the opposite.

 

[Trodax]

By my understanding, an opposed attack roll *doesn't* use DV. The two attack rolls are compared, highest wins, no DV.

Yeah, I'm totally with Mayhem on this one. Pretty sure DV is not used in an opposed attack roll. Compare with an opposed skill check; the contestants each make a skill check, highest score wins (so there is no DC). AE, page 75.

Doesn't it seem odd that as the defender of a sunder or disarm attack that your weapon focus feat, an attack bonus, aids you in what is basically a defensive situation but your defensive feats don't?

I agree that it seems a bit odd, but it also seems odd to add them both. Is that what you propose, or do you mean to remove the bonus you get from "offensive" things (Weapon Focus) and replace it with "defensive" bonuses (Intricate Swordplay)? If you mean to replace offense with defense you could almost just change the opposed attack roll to a standard "to hit"-roll (so as defender you use your regular DV).

What about shields, by the way? Would you get to add that bonus to the opposed attack roll?

Even if you don't apply the penalty to the defender but give him no bonus for his defensive ability on the opposed roll a character with expertise, parry, 18 CHA and Intricate swordsman is loosing abetween 5-10 pts on his defense just because his opponent is attacking his weapon/shield instead of him. Does that seem fair?

Not really true. In the opposed attack roll he will be adding his BAB, which will be higher then his Base Parry/Dodge. So it won't be 5-10 points easier to sunder his weapon than to hit him. I see what you mean though, a character with a lot of defensive Feats (and not that much that adds to his attack roll) will sort of have sunder/disarm as his "weak spot".

I basically like your idea of adding defensive things to resist sunder and disarm attempts, but I see it as sort of a "doubling up" thing; you get to add BAB (which is high) and also your defensive bonuses. If you want to make sunder and disarm a bit weaker, I guess it could work out though.

For me, I think I'll be happy to keep the opposed attack roll as it is, just ruling that the penalty from Combat Expertise, fighting defensively etc. do not apply to the opposed attack roll.

 

[Sutek]

By my understanding, an opposed attack roll *doesn't* use DV. The two attack rolls are compared, highest wins, no DV.

If DV is taken into account, what is an "Opposed attack roll?"

Do both participants roll vs their opponents DV? What happens if both miss? What happens if both hit?

Look at the first page of the Combat chapter. there is a description of an "Attack Roll". For Sunder, Disarm and Grapple, both opponents make opposed Attack Rolls, but they are Attack Rolls none the less.

For what happens if both hit or both miss, look at the "results" section of each.

 

[Mayhem]

Look at the first page of the Combat chapter. there is a description of an "Attack Roll". For Sunder, Disarm and Grapple, both opponents make opposed Attack Rolls, but they are Attack Rolls none the less.

Indeed they are. But the description of an attack roll is "When you make an attack roll, you roll a D20 and add your attack bonus." Full Stop.

It goes on to say, that if you beat your opponets DV, then you hit. But in a disarm or sunder, you are not trying to "hit".

So only the part before the attack roll applies.

"You roll a D20 and add your attack bonus."

Your opponent does exactly the same.

Whoever gets the highest, wins. Thats what an opposed roll means. DV is not used.

For what happens if both hit or both miss, look at the "results" section of each.

Nope, the descriptions say nothing about both hitting (IE, both rolling higher than their opponents DV. Or both missing, for that matter.

The first line of Disarm, for example, states "If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed." If we were rolling vs his DV, we beat that, we have disarmed him. What the heck is the defender even rolling for? If we are using his DV, we don't care a whit what his roll is.

But we do care, because the system calls for an opposed attack roll. My d20 + modifers vs his D20 + modifers. DV does not enter into it!.

 

[Sutek]

Look at the first page of the Combat chapter. there is a description of an "Attack Roll". For Sunder, Disarm and Grapple, both opponents make opposed Attack Rolls, but they are Attack Rolls none the less.

Indeed they are. But the description of an attack roll is "When you make an attack roll, you roll a D20 and add your attack bonus." Full Stop.

...and compare it to your opponent's DV.

 

[Mayhem]

IF you are trying to hit them.

Which with Sunder and Disarm, you are not.

Using DV makes no sense in an *opposed* attack roll, since an opposed roll is a roll made vs somebody elses roll, not some static figure like DV.

 

[Sutek]

I see what you're saying, but I'll have to read it again. I really think it's the best attack roll versus DV of the two combatants. Or rather it should be. I'm probably automatically thinking of it as being done in Hârnmaster where both players roll to hit one another, but in that system, you can get hit and take damage for the attempt. I really don't like the way in d20 that Disarms, Sunders and Grapples suddenly switch to a roll vs. roll mechanic. Broken weapons in Hârn are also a product of just getting a solid hit rather than being anything intentional.