Sundering armor...why not?

[Cwymbran-San]

Hi there fellow playgrounders,

can anyone explain to me why it is impossible to sunder armor worn by a character/monster? I mean, if i had an adamantine blade in hand and a well armored opponent with lots of HP before me, my prime directive would be to shatter his protection first (adamantine should cut steel quite nicely).

My approach would be as follows:
On the DM Screen it says, armor has 5 HP per point of armor bonus, so every 5 points of damage would reduce said armor by one point. Full plate would be scrap metal by the point it has taken 40 points of damage, no langer providing any protection (but still hindering movement, applying dex modifiers and arcane casting until removed).

That way seems a little more realistic to me, without posing too many issues with keeping track of damaged armor. Oh, and it finally gives good reason to put ranks in Craft (Armorer) :smallbiggrin:

Thoughts?

[Knaight]

can anyone explain to me why it is impossible to sunder armor worn by a character/monster? I mean, if i had an adamantine blade in hand and a well armored opponent with lots of HP before me, my prime directive would be to shatter his protection first (adamantine should cut steel quite nicely).
Would you care to explain how you are sundering armor without hurting the thing inside? Because once you get past the armor, most things are pretty squishy, and if you get through you will have some degree of excess force.

[Cwymbran-San]

Would you care to explain how you are sundering armor without hurting the thing inside? Because once you get past the armor, most things are pretty squishy, and if you get through you will have some degree of excess force.

I can not, but if we adapted that approach, no matter of armor (except adamantine or high-bonus magical armor) would give you any armor bonus against adamantine weapons.
How about applying half the damage to the armor, the other half to the wearing character, less the hardness of the material as a token DR?

[GodGoblin]

I always assumed the problem was when striking an aroured opponant normally you would hit his armour so every attack made should theoretically include a sunder against armour.

Because really whats the difference between striking someones breastplate and striking for the heart but bouncing off?

[Ceaon]

It seems an okay way to add realism at the cost of balance (as those characters who depend on their armor are already the weaker ones). If that's what you're looking for, this rule still has some problems (like random monsters destroying the fighters magical armor EVERY fight which causes him to spend huge amounts of money on it) but I guess it can work.

[Reluctance]

Like many things in 3.5, it's a realism issue. Swinging your sword at the chunk of metal surrounding your opponent isn't much different from swinging your sword at your opponent.

On the practical side? Everything wrong with Sunder. Players hate using it because they destroy what would otherwise be their treasure. Players especially hate it when you use it against them, because you're busting up all their stuff. So while from certain angles there's no reason to disallow it, don't. Just trust me on this.

[Cwymbran-San]

Ok, different approach. I was practicing a little swordplay myself (hence my avatar), therefor i know about the effects of weapons against armor. I just cannot believe that taking a dozen blows (that strip me of HP) will not damage my armor in any way.

Let's say, every armor has HP equal to the armor bonus times 10 and a DR half the armor bonus. Every time i get hit, my armor takes damage equal to the amount the DR sucked away. So, in full plate, i get hit for 10 damage, 6 for me, 4 to the armor.
Exception: weapons that ignore hardness and critical hits, those would apply their damage to both.

And no, the melees in our group are enormously strong, thanks to ToB and Pathfinder Power Attack.

[mikau013]

Don't forget it you do damage to the armour, than you aren't doing it to whoever is wearing the armour. Thus you aren't just destroying your future gear but maybe also possibly making the fight longer and thus more difficult.

[Spiryt]

Generally because, as mentioned, Sunder is already kind of broken, destroys stuff way to easily, without serving much purpose - players either destroy their loot, or get their stuff damaged by one lucky swing of some monsters.

Therefore, pushing it further serves no real purpose.

Other than that, 3.5 is high level of abstraction, so explaining everything literally, in "realism" attempts doesn't really work well, so is not used.

[Cwymbran-San]

[QUOTE=Spiryt;12652356] players either destroy their loot, QUOTE]

erm...no. Even if undamaged, no player in his good mind would carry off loot in the form of enemy armor. A shield maybe, but not armor.

[cc_kizz]

players either destroy their loot,

erm...no. Even if undamaged, no player in his good mind would carry off loot in the form of enemy armor. A shield maybe, but not armor.

Actually, I considered carrying off enemy armor for purposes of disguise. As a newbie player, perhaps I'm not in my right mind…

[limejuicepowder]

I actually don't see the realism in completely destroying someone's armor with sunder attempts. Sundering a weapon, that makes sense - when a sword breaks in to two pieces, it is obviously not as effective. But plate armor with some holes in it is still going to provide protection, albeit not as much. Entirely removing ALL protection from armor would entail not only turning the plates in to swiss cheess, but removing all of the padding and chain underneath it. Not possible, IMO.

Plus, more then anything, this is just one more way to **** on melee. I know you said you don't have that problem, but still, I imagine your players won't appreciate the book keeping involved.

[CTrees]

Ok, different approach. I was practicing a little swordplay myself (hence my avatar), therefor i know about the effects of weapons against armor. I just cannot believe that taking a dozen blows (that strip me of HP) will not damage my armor in any way.


Realistic? Sure, especially when you look at why certain weapons were designed the way they were. Certain mace designs, for instance, purposefully created to punch holes in armor and hurt the person underneath. Realistically, that should do tons of damage to the armor itself, eventually destroying it.

Though... what happens with fireballs and other damage spells or effects?

However, the level of accounting required, and the constant repairs? Either you obviate it via magical repairs (making the whole exercise pointless), or it becomes a massive drain on funds and a huge timesink (NOT FUN). Take it from me - I played a 2e game once that ran pretty much exactly how you're proposing. It didn't take long before everyone relying on armor got themselves killed and rerolled as wizards and the like, so as to not have to worry about it. At which point the exercise was ended and the rule was removed.


erm...no. Even if undamaged, no player in his good mind would carry off loot in the form of enemy armor. A shield maybe, but not armor.

*cough*bagofholding*cough* The better armors sell for nice chunks of change. From 3e on, I've never dealt with a group which didn't loot as much armor as possible. When encumbrance got to be an issue, or the BoHs got full, they'd just toss the armor with the worst gold-to-weight ratios first.

[Cwymbran-San]

Actually, I considered carrying off enemy armor for purposes of disguise. As a newbie player, perhaps I'm not in my right mind…

It is just a matter of encumbrance. The guys carry their own armor, gear and possibly loot that is actually meant to sell (gems, jewelry etc). For the encumbrance limit blocked by a set of full plate, you might carry 2000 gold pieces in cash, or an even bigger amount of gems. It is just not worth the effort.

But plate armor with some holes in it is still going to provide protection, albeit not as much. Entirely removing ALL protection from armor would entail not only turning the plates in to swiss cheess, but removing all of the padding and chain underneath it. Not possible, IMO.

Thats why i was thinking about the armor slowly wearing down, getting less useful with every hit taken. And yes, it is possible to destroy the whole thing, some weapons are actually designed for destroying plate armor (crossbow bolts, spears, maces and flails jsut for starters).

A different reason for this ideas is simple: my players are hogging their coins :smallamused: Still feeding on iron rations (if they fail the hunter skill check), sleeping in the open (because inns are to pricey), slogging on foot (because mounts are expensive in upkeep) etc.
So, aside from realistics (does this word exist?), i am looking for a fair way to empty their pockets.

But i guess you are right, added realism or no, it simply would not be fun, and this is what this game should be all about.

[panaikhan]

Damaging armour is certainly possible. The D&D conversion of DiabloII had rules for damaging .. well.. pretty much everything.
In the computer game, damaged equipment was a loot tax (and the loot was excessive).
When I actually ran the DiabloII modules, I pretty much ignored it - for the simple reason that it was far too much bookkeeping to track the HP of every piece of equipment.

Putting my player hat on for a minute:
Do I choose to spend several rounds struggling to hit the bad guy in an attempt to break his armour (and thus make him slightly easier to hit) or do I slap him with something that his AC doesn't help with? Hmm....

[Aotrs Commander]

A different reason for this ideas is simple: my players are hogging their coins :smallamused: Still feeding on iron rations (if they fail the hunter skill check), sleeping in the open (because inns are to pricey), slogging on foot (because mounts are expensive in upkeep) etc.
So, aside from realistics (does this word exist?), i am looking for a fair way to empty their pockets.

But i guess you are right, added realism or no, it simply would not be fun, and this is what this game should be all about.

I think that says you have an underlying issue you first need to address. Why your players are being so stingey with their gold (or, for that matter, their silver/copper). Are you not handing out enough treasure? Are they saving for something really big? Are they feeling ripped off by inn prices and food costs or something1? Are they really just that greedy? If they're being that tight with their gold, trying to force them into spending it on a money sink is not going to improve the situation.



1Which can happen, I know in some (module-based) campaigns I've played, the inns have been detailed with all manner of local costs and prices, and often much higher than the PHB. Once, I recall, the whole party spent the night in a brothel because it was cheaper than any of the inns...

[panaikhan]

When encumbrance got to be an issue, they'd just toss the armor with the worst gold-to-weight ratios first.

This. Talk to ANYONE who plays Fallout / Elder scrolls games (including me lol).

[Cwymbran-San]

We play on Eberron, shortly after the war. Food is expensive while soldiers are cheap.

I know one of them is saving up for his own stormship, for the rest i can only guess.

[Aotrs Commander]

We play on Eberron, shortly after the war. Food is expensive while soldiers are cheap.

I know one of them is saving up for his own stormship, for the rest i can only guess.

That could well be your problem then. If you're making them pay over the odds for upkeep (i.e. maintainance), for which they are not getting any benefits, they're ever likely to go for the cheapest options.

Another question has to be asked then - why is making them pay upkeep so important? I mean, I can understand if they've got well over the odds of WBL, and you want to cut them down to size, but a few gold here isn't going to make that much difference in that regard. Accounting for the sake of accounting rarely adds any entertainment for the players. Conversely, of course, past the first couple of levels, inns and such ought to be pocket change for the PCs, as likewise, a few extra gold isn't going to buy them an extra magic item (unless they're going through oth and 1st level scrolls like nobody's business). So why isn't it? What are you charging them for inns and food (and, it must be asked, if food is costly, why are iron rations not proportionally so?)



In our groups, standard practise is to have a party fund, in which things like rations and such like come out of, as well as other disposables (e.g. wands for party healing) - even if it's mostly fuelled by the remainders after dividing up the gold, it should be enough to keep the basic covered. Perhaps is you suggest this to your players, they might be less bothered about spending "their" (individual character's) money on something that doesn't gain them anything.



If they're already doing that and still sleeping outside and whatnot, I think you need to have a long, hard look at your upkeep rules and talk to the players about them; this just smacks of more than the players just being Scrooge-like misers.

[Psyren]

Can't Bebiliths sunder armor? You could summon one of them to do it :smalltongue:

For the encumbrance argument, you should just get a Handy Haversack or something.

[Cwymbran-San]

Ok, inns and taverns cost 3 to 4 times the normal price, iron rations is simply food bought from army stock (much like in the real world, this is stuff normal people would not eat).

But you posed the right question: why do i want to keep them short on gold? After further consideration, it is just to get the feeling across: you live in a war-torn area, none of you should be exspected to sit on a mound of gold while around you people freeze and starve.

But, as it turns out, my players have a different feel about the atmosphere the experience. Maybe i should prepare an adventure with a journey to Xen'drik, for a change of pace and atmosphere.

Thank you all for your comment, it was well appreciated:smallsmile:

[gkathellar]

Honestly, you can't sunder armor for the same reason PCs hate rust monsters.

[big teej]

Hi there fellow playgrounders,

can anyone explain to me why it is impossible to sunder armor worn by a character/monster? I mean, if i had an adamantine blade in hand and a well armored opponent with lots of HP before me, my prime directive would be to shatter his protection first (adamantine should cut steel quite nicely).

My approach would be as follows:
On the DM Screen it says, armor has 5 HP per point of armor bonus, so every 5 points of damage would reduce said armor by one point. Full plate would be scrap metal by the point it has taken 40 points of damage, no langer providing any protection (but still hindering movement, applying dex modifiers and arcane casting until removed).

That way seems a little more realistic to me, without posing too many issues with keeping track of damaged armor. Oh, and it finally gives good reason to put ranks in Craft (Armorer) :smallbiggrin:

Thoughts?

I considered something similar some time ago.

I believe the basic idea was "every time a character takes more damage than their armor's hardness, the excess is taken as damage to the armor. left unrepaired, this will eventually destroy the armor"

I ignored things like gradual loss of AC as simply being way to complicated to keep track of.


I also abandoned the idea as a whole because it's just rough on PCs.

[Telonius]

Hi there fellow playgrounders,

can anyone explain to me why it is impossible to sunder armor worn by a character/monster?

Because Spiritual Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm) is a medium range spell.

Because it's a disadvantage to everybody but the most powerful classes.

Because how are you going to figure the opposed roll.

Because of MAD (the "mutually assured destruction" kind).

[Aotrs Commander]

Ok, inns and taverns cost 3 to 4 times the normal price, iron rations is simply food bought from army stock (much like in the real world, this is stuff normal people would not eat).

But you posed the right question: why do i want to keep them short on gold? After further consideration, it is just to get the feeling across: you live in a war-torn area, none of you should be exspected to sit on a mound of gold while around you people freeze and starve.

But, as it turns out, my players have a different feel about the atmosphere the experience. Maybe i should prepare an adventure with a journey to Xen'drik, for a change of pace and atmosphere.

Thank you all for your comment, it was well appreciated:smallsmile:

My pleasure. *tips helmet*

[Big Fau]

OP, I believe you are overlooking the part where armor is made of metal. It doesn't exactly break easily.

Weapons are easier to break because the laws of physics play against them, but even then it takes some insane strength to actually break a weapon (and, IRL, your weapon would be damaged extensively in the process). Armor is more sturdy than weapons; it takes several battles worth of constant use for armor to need repair. A breastplate's actual frame may be less than an inch thick, but it has a design that causes non-direct strikes to deflect off, along with several layers of "weaker" armor (I say weaker, but it's usually chainmail underneath).

Striking the armor with the intent to break it means you are also going to be hitting the person wearing it with enough strength to punch holes in steel. It isn't realistic for armor to survive as long as it does in a D&D campaign, but it's less so to allow players to sunder it.

[Mystify]

erm...no. Even if undamaged, no player in his good mind would carry off loot in the form of enemy armor. A shield maybe, but not armor.
Are you crazy? Armour can be extremely valuable, and there are dozens of ways to get around the weight. They aren't that heavy. Masterwork full plate costs 1,500gp. Magical armour is worth a pretty penny. It adds up fairly quickly. Sure, it may not be worthwhile to take normal chainmail, but even masterwork armour is worth grabbing.

[Gavinfoxx]

I say this every time someone thinks of adding more realistic weapons or armor or martial arts or weapon effects or whatever to D&D 3.5e.

Play Codex Martialis instead.

It's designed by a guy here, and is basically D&D 3.5e, but designed to actually be realistic, especially if you limit it to E6 and classes like Expert/Fighter/Aristocrat/Rogue.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250

Really! Try it, it'll do what you want!

[Slipperychicken]

This. Talk to ANYONE who plays Fallout / Elder scrolls games (including me lol).

It's basic economics. You use limited resources (weight capacity) for the greatest benefit (in this case measured in price/weight ratio).

Also, a character is presumed not to mind eating gruel, or sleeping outside, unless otherwise specified. Adventuring ain't easy. Quality of life the least of an adventurer's worries...



.

[CTrees]

OP, I believe you are overlooking the part where armor is made of metal. It doesn't exactly break easily.

I could, possibly, agree, except that: 1) Many of the weapons people are carrying around are specifically designed to put nice holes in armor, 2) adamantine can-openers axes exist, and 3) a suit of halfplate, on the ground, can be broken easily enough, but if a person is inside that halfplate, lying on the ground (physics are essentially identical, no being pushed backwards to soften the blow, etc). it's not only harder but impossible to break the exact same suit of armor.

[Psyren]

Also, a character is presumed not to mind eating gruel, or sleeping outside, unless otherwise specified. Adventuring ain't easy. Quality of life the least of an adventurer's worries...

Except Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesMagnificentMansion.htm) :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

I could, possibly, agree, except that: 1) Many of the weapons people are carrying around are specifically designed to put nice holes in armor,

And still it's not easy nor most optimal to actually try to defeat armor like that.

Unless we're talking firearms, or siege engines, but that's offtop.


OP, I believe you are overlooking the part where armor is made of metal. It doesn't exactly break easily.

The whole problem is that metal armor still often would made the most sense to be 'sundered'.

Buckles getting severed, coat of plates backing completely torn, plate getting so deformed that one cannot move easily anymore....

Meanwhile, if someone puts a decent hole in mail or quilted armor, by strong thrust.... Then punctured part of armor becomes a hole in defense, but the whole rest is still perfectly alright.

It's damn hard to imagine something that might outright 'sunder' it.

Another problem with suddenly deciding that it's 'realistic' to sunder armor is - why shouldn't it work both ways?

If someone tries very forceful way around armor, then hammers and maces will deform from impact, hafts will go to splinters, swords will chip, dull and bend, grips will crack due to vibrations, and so on and so on... In so many cases weapon would obviously be first to 'go'.

We can go into further complications, but in the end - D&D is not simulationist or 'realistic' at all.

[Mari01]

Ok, inns and taverns cost 3 to 4 times the normal price, iron rations is simply food bought from army stock (much like in the real world, this is stuff normal people would not eat).

But you posed the right question: why do i want to keep them short on gold? After further consideration, it is just to get the feeling across: you live in a war-torn area, none of you should be exspected to sit on a mound of gold while around you people freeze and starve.

But, as it turns out, my players have a different feel about the atmosphere the experience. Maybe i should prepare an adventure with a journey to Xen'drik, for a change of pace and atmosphere.

Thank you all for your comment, it was well appreciated:smallsmile:

So....the people around them are literally starving to death and you're wondering why your players are hoarding every bit of gold they can get? That seems a bit backwards. If I knew that 800 gold would mean that I get to eat for the next 3 years, I wouldn't count my silver and copper pieces VERY carefully.

[Slipperychicken]

If I knew that 800 gold would mean that I get to eat for the next 3 years, I wouldn't count my silver and copper pieces VERY carefully.

Except Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesMagnificentMansion.htm) :smalltongue:


Wizards: Feeding >156 people nine-course banquets for free every night since 13th level, while the Fighter still pinches pennies to feed himself. Wizards do everything, and they do it in style :smallcool:

[Cwymbran-San]

Wizards: Feeding >156 people nine-course banquets for free every night since 13th level, while the Fighter still pinches pennies to feed himself. Wizards do everything, and they do it in style :smallcool:

Exccept, of course, that highlevel wizards are scarce on Eberron. Yes there is magic alla round, but even their leaders are somewhat around level 9.

And of course, in our campaign, the brass considers wizards of that level too high of value for just feeding the poor.
Karrnath even relies on starvation. They more dead from starvation, the more undead soldiers.

[Zerter]

I made a frost giant with 5 class levels as a mini-boss once. He had a +5 adamantium great-axe and specialised in sundering. I thought it was very amusing when the the guy with the new character lost his two most expensive items in his first encounter (I ruled any weapons laying sundered on the ground that where caught in the Wizard's aoe frenzy were ruined beyond repair), but he did not agree.

[Ossian]

Armour wear and tear is worth adding to a melee heavy campaign. Especially one where gold is still worth something and armours are expensive pieces of luxury equipment. You just have to develop a sense for when repairs are possible and when not. I would give an armour some arbitrary amount of Hit Points, say bonus to AC x 20.

1 light fight takes x HP away (1d3?)
1 moderate fight takes x2 HP (1d4?)
1 heavy fight takes x4 (1d8?)

1 TOUCH attack = light fight
1 Critical = heavy fight
1 Adamantine weapon hit = 3 heavy fights

touch, crit and adamantine damage would compound, I think.

If you let your armour drop to below 50% of its HP (say, under 80 hp for a full plate) you can't repair it anymore, it's so damaged it s not even worth it. If it is an emergency, an awesome smith could fix it, by worsening its ACP, ACF, MDB (by 2 points each?)

Cost of repair should scale up with damage. So an 80 hp fix should cost way more than eighty 1 hp fixes.

O.

[georgie_leech]

My games always used a house rule where armour could be damaged but not destroyed. Basically, Sunder attempts against metal armour played out as they would in any other situation, but to represent how damaged armor is less effective and harder to move in but extremely tough to destroy outright, for every 1/3 of the hp of the armour lost to damage, there was a -1 penalty to attack and AC. If a piece of armour was completely "destroyed" it was instead just unwearable until it could get repaired by a blacksmith or a spell or similar. Further, fighters were trained in basic armor maintanence, and could repair minor damage (anything with more than 66% remaining) provided they had a little kit they could purchase. If they had Craft:Armorsmithing they could do significantly more with a decent skill check.

[Asgardian]

I dont think this is any rulebook but its always been the way I've looked at Armor and AC

Armors AC represents an armors ability to deflect a blow and not stop it dead in its tracks. With that said, any blow hard enough to sunder armor would shift the wearers positioning enough to cause some of the force of the blow to still be deflected. However, if the armor was braced on a table or something, that same force would not have been deflected and the armor would be sundered

[Seerow]

Ok, different approach. I was practicing a little swordplay myself (hence my avatar), therefor i know about the effects of weapons against armor. I just cannot believe that taking a dozen blows (that strip me of HP) will not damage my armor in any way.

Let's say, every armor has HP equal to the armor bonus times 10 and a DR half the armor bonus. Every time i get hit, my armor takes damage equal to the amount the DR sucked away. So, in full plate, i get hit for 10 damage, 6 for me, 4 to the armor.
Exception: weapons that ignore hardness and critical hits, those would apply their damage to both.

And no, the melees in our group are enormously strong, thanks to ToB and Pathfinder Power Attack.

If this is really what you want you may like one of my armor variants. Edit: Here's a link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228380)



tl;dr version is: You get the armor value of the armor times the number of iterative attacks you make in temporary HP, that refreshes every round. Basically a quasi-DR that doesn't screw two weapon fighters. I included an optional rule that makes it so any round in which your armor's temporary HP is reduced to 0, the armor bonus is reduced by 1 (so you get both less AC and less temp HP). This can be repaired relatively easily, but if it gets reduced all the way to 0, the armor needs to be repaired at a forge, taking more money and time to restore.

[Jack_Simth]

erm...no. Even if undamaged, no player in his good mind would carry off loot in the form of enemy armor. A shield maybe, but not armor.Armor is valuable, and good for sale. If encumbrance is the issue, well, that's what bags of holding, portable holes, and pack animals are for.

[ericgrau]

Because swinging your weapon to hit your target is the exact same action as swinging your weapon to hit the armor. And both have the same effect: you will put a slash in the armor and mostly hurt the person and barely hurt the armor.

It's like trying to damage the sheet metal on the car without damaging the rest of the car, trying to destroy the skin on a bufallo without hurting his body, or trying to rip off the hide of any foe without hurting the body. It makes no sense and it would take ages to complete even if you could.

[mikau013]

Armor is valuable, and good for sale. If encumbrance is the issue, well, that's what bags of holding, portable holes, and pack animals are for.

And saddle bags :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Armor is valuable, and good for sale. If encumbrance is the issue, well, that's what bags of holding, portable holes, and pack animals are for.

Then there is stuff like mail - sure, it's a bit heavy, but it folds up quite nicely and doesn't take up a lot of space. How much more convenient can it get?

[Calanon]

Actually, I considered carrying off enemy armor for purposes of disguise. As a newbie player, perhaps I'm not in my right mind…

Actually thats pretty smart of you :smallsmile: Whats that give you? a +5 bonus to Disguise? All in all worth it if i say so myself... I wonder how he's doing right now...

Ah yes... good memories...

[OracleofWuffing]

Because once the players find out that armor can be sundered, no female NPC's dignity is ever safe again.