Dealing damage to Player Equipment - Help?

[Synchaoz]

Hi, newly registered here but often referred to the site for discussions, Q&A and whatnot. Now I've finally decided to register, because I simply cannot figure this one out.

How - and where - do you figure out how to deal damage to player equipment? I've looked through PHB and DMG, and I've searched on google multiple times, but I am yet to find any conclusive ruleset that describes how, and how much, damage items suffer.

Specifically what I'm out for here, is that I want my next campaign to have an extra level of hazard for the players, particularly environmental damage to their equipment.

I mean surely of a fighter decked in full-plate armor stumbles into a vat of acid, one would start considering that parts of his equipment start eroding.

Or if that cocky Tiefling with natural fire resistance casually strolls through the wall of flame, reasoning "Meh, I won't get hurt, I was born from fire" - right mate, but your cloth robe and wooden shield wasn't.

How do you go about this? How much damage would a wooden shield suffer from, say, 1 rounds exposure to fire? Or metal armor exposed to concentrated acid, etc.?

My most immediate thought would be that an items hardness would come into play depending on what type of damage it is subjected to. A metal armor subjected to fire would hardly take much damage unless sustaining the damage over a long period, or in only truly intense fires. Thus walking through fire in a full-plate would be less risky than doing so in a cloth robe - because in my opinion, cloth or wood should not benefit from hardness (if any) when suffering fire damage - and likewise metal and iron hardness should matter little when subjected to acid.

But really, I cannot find any conclusive numbers or rules to support these ideas, and I'm starting to wonder if item durability was meant to be a "make up your own rules" type of thing from the start?

I realize that sunder damage, such as using a weapon to strike another weapon would simply be damage dealt versus hardness and hit points of the weapon being attacked. But what of environmental damage, spell damage etc?

So yeah, any input would be much appreciated, thanks.

Oh btw, I did find a section in DMG about magic items saving throws against taking damage, such as from a disintegrate spell. What other types of spells would logically pose a threat to a player's equipment? - and again, what type of hazard would they pose: a simple "save or be destroyed" DC or perhaps an actual damage roll versus the item's hardness and HP?

Also, any opinions on "self damage" from, for example, striking an iron door repeatedly with your great axe or heavy flail? Wouldn't it be fair to risk the weapon degrading or even breaking from such careless battering?

And in that same spirit (this one is a longshot I know, but still); striking foes such as stone or iron golems?

[Hamste]

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness. Certain objects you might deem are super effective in which case it does double damage and might ignore hardness (Like fire to wood)


http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Breaking_and_Entering

These are the exact rules. Though I have to warn you, make sure to have a ton of replacement options for the group. Particulary for the fighter as damaging equipment is horrible for them.

[Synchaoz]

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness. Certain objects you might deem are super effective in which case it does double damage and might ignore hardness (Like fire to wood)


http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Breaking_and_Entering

These are the exact rules. Though I have to warn you, make sure to have a ton of replacement options for the group. Particulary for the fighter as damaging equipment is horrible for them.

Ah nice, thanks for the quick reply. But that poses another question: Say my evil wizard bastard launches a sonic fireball at my players, dealing 10d6 points of sonic to all caught in the blast. Would it be too much to also apply that damage to the equipment of the players or perhaps that's being a bit too greedy?

[Boci]

Ah nice, thanks for the quick reply. But that poses another question: Say my evil wizard bastard launches a sonic fireball at my players, dealing 10d6 points of sonic to all caught in the blast. Would it be too much to also apply that damage to the equipment of the players or perhaps that's being a bit too greedy?

If a player is being greedy address that OOC, don't bend the rule IC. An area affect only damages a character's items when they roll a natural 1 on a save. Yes it doesn't make too much sense, but 3.5 is built requiering that players have the recommended magical items for their level, and chaning that fiddles with balance and can really piss off players.

[Hamste]

It would technically I think (I think, a lot of AOE should) but I highly suggest you don't. It is the same reason no one makes a sundering bad guy. Nothing annoys a player more than having their stuff destroyed and most groups have an unspoken gentleman's agreement that they shall never do it. Plus it can have a very negative effect on game balance if you follow through with it.

I don't get where the person above me is getting their information but from what I see, non-magical objects get saves as their owner (magical items have different rules for saves) against spells (Like fireball), I can't find any rules that says objects held are only affected by rolling a natural 1.

[Vedhin]

There are rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) for damaging items with area spells.
I will warn you though, attacking equipment is a very bad idea. It makes players angry if you wreck their stuff, and it often turns the game into an arms race, with the players trying to develop defenses for their items and the DM trying to beat the defenses. Basically, don't destroy items. Try things like disarm and dispel magic to temporarily negate items instead. It's not a perfect alternative, but it will work much better.

[Boci]

I don't get where the person above me is getting their information but from what I see, non-magical objects get saves as their owner (magical items have different rules for saves) against spells (Like fireball), I can't find any rules that says objects held are only affected by rolling a natural 1.

I have a screen name you know, and here it is from the SRD:

Automatic Failures and Successes

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

[Deophaun]

I don't get where the person above me is getting their information but from what I see, non-magical objects get saves as their owner (magical items have different rules for saves) against spells (Like fireball), I can't find any rules that says objects held are only affected by rolling a natural 1.
Page 177 in the PHB.

Besides issues of balance and needing replacement, consider the paperwork. Your players need to keep track of every item's hp and hardness and calculate damage for every single attack?

Do you have a surplus of game time or something?

[Big Fau]

Though I have to warn you, make sure to have a ton of replacement options for the group. Particularly for the fighter as damaging equipment is horrible for them.

I want to emphasis this: Destroying equipment hurts the (mechanically) weakest classes in the game and is largely considered a jerk move. Sundering is heavily frowned upon because it's basically the only mechanic in the game that encourages the player using it to actively destroy his own treasure (the developers didn't have the foresight to include a recommendation to the DM about compensating the player for such a thing). This is leaving out the other reason (it's tactical suicide), but by-and-large destroying equipment is a bad idea.

Especially Disjunction. That crosses a line for a lot of people.

[Hamste]

I have a screen name you know, and here it is from the SRD:

Automatic Failures and Successes

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
Sorry about that, but I can't really write names on this so I always refer to them as them or that person. I use autocorrect and whenever I type names it messes them up unless if I bother to add them to the dictionary. Anyways I never knew that...that would have saved a lot of trouble.

[Boci]

Sorry about that, but I can't really write names on this so I always refer to them as them or that person. I use autocorrect and whenever I type names it messes them up unless if I bother to add them to the dictionary. Anyways I never knew that...that would have saved a lot of trouble.

Oh, that explains it. As for the rule, as others have said it isn't commonly used because it complicated, rarely comes up and generally doesn't work well with the setting requirements. A bit like the rule that a third of all magical items shed light.

[nyjastul69]

Oh, that explains it. As for the rule, as others have said it isn't commonly used because it complicated, rarely comes up and generally doesn't work well with the setting requirements. A bit like the rule that a third of all magical items shed light.

It's actually 30% of magic weapons shed light. It's not a general rule for all magic items.

[Boci]

It's actually 30% of magic weapons shed light. It's not a general rule for all magic items.

Shows how much I care about the rule...

[Synchaoz]

Thanks for all the great input, folks.

I do realize that wrecking player's items is sort of a knee-jerk thing to do, and my initial plans were to simply make it an "extreme case environmental" thing, like wading through fire on purpose just because the PC has fire resistance - that actually happened once, a tiefling PC was standing in a burning house, everyone else had to maneuvre around it, while he just strolled right though it because the burn damage was too low to hurt him more than max 2 points. That kinda left me a bit like "Eh, yeah okay, but your gear isn't fire proof mate", though I didn't act upon it.

So it's more the idea of wanting them to actually consider things a bit in potential hazard-zones. And also to throw the occasional gear-munching monster after them, making them value their research and dungeoneering skills a bit higher before rushing blindly into creatures that will strip them. Oh and also as a little extra money sink for them to spend dough on, instead of always just stocking up on more and more magical junk that never breaks.

But it's definitely something to think about more deeply I see now, lots of food for thought. Thanks a bunch.

[Vaz]

If you give them a McGuffin, then Sunder it, I find that to be a good use of an item. Ie Holy Sword McGuffin is the only way to defeat Evil Guy, then have Evil Guy destroy said item is a new plothook (rather than stop breaking my swords!). Only to have them find out the sword is made of a metal which locates its other forged pieces and slowly joins together on its own accord. Followed up thieiving, looting, tuckers Kobolds...

[Deophaun]

I do realize that wrecking player's items is sort of a knee-jerk thing to do, and my initial plans were to simply make it an "extreme case environmental" thing, like wading through fire on purpose just because the PC has fire resistance - that actually happened once
I would expect it to happen more than once, as that's a major usage of energy resistance. There are plenty of adventures where obtaining X resistance is necessary, because the PCs would die in that environment otherwise (see: plane of fire).

What you essentially did in this case is negate a player's build. The player spent character resources obtaining a paltry fire resistance, which will get negated down the road as it doesn't stack with resistance from equipment bonuses. He should be rewarded for his choice.

Edit: Some alternate ways to handle the above situation.

A building on fire has more than heat to worry about. First, there's smoke. It's hard to see very far, so let's give total concealment at 10 feet. Second, well, there's smoke. It's tough to breathe. You're going to need to hold your breath or have some alternate means of air, otherwise something bad happens. Let's say the character becomes nauseated if he breathes in the smoke and fails a Fort save. Finally, the fire is eating at the structure. Floors and ceilings are no longer stable. Parts of the building can collapse on top of you or send you plummeting to the ground below. In short, a burning building is still not a safe place for a fire-resistant creature. It is, indeed, safer, but if all you've got is fire damage, you've missed the interesting parts of the scenario.

This is what you need to look at; not how to houserule abilities into uselessness, but how to make encounters more interesting.

[SethoMarkus]

I would expect it to happen more than once, as that's a major usage of energy resistance. There are plenty of adventures where obtaining X resistance is necessary, because the PCs would die in that environment otherwise (see: plane of fire).

What you essentially did in this case is negate a player's build. The player spent character resources obtaining a paltry fire resistance, which will get negated down the road as it doesn't stack with resistance from equipment bonuses. He should be rewarded for his choice.

Edit: Some alternate ways to handle the above situation.

A building on fire has more than heat to worry about. First, there's smoke. It's hard to see very far, so let's give total concealment at 10 feet. Second, well, there's smoke. It's tough to breathe. You're going to need to hold your breath or have some alternate means of air, otherwise something bad happens. Let's say the character becomes nauseated if he breathes in the smoke and fails a Fort save. Finally, the fire is eating at the structure. Floors and ceilings are no longer stable. Parts of the building can collapse on top of you or send you plummeting to the ground below. In short, a burning building is still not a safe place for a fire-resistant creature. It is, indeed, safer, but if all you've got is fire damage, you've missed the interesting parts of the scenario.

This is what you need to look at; not how to houserule abilities into uselessness, but how to make encounters more interesting.

I think you're kind of missing the point of what he's saying... It isn't that the character built a character specifically around fire resistance and now the DM is trying to overcome that, but that the fire resistance was a passive part of the build (from Tiefling) and the OP/DM wants to add some realistic side-effects and consequences on say wooden and cloth equipment from just waltzing through fire.

Now, I do agree with your recommendation, though, even if I don't agree with where you came from =P Find other ways to spice up the encounter. Unless the characters start taking baths in acid or sleeping in the light fireplace, don't damage their gear (without good reason). If a character uses their Acid resistance to grapple an ooze to buy their friends some time, let them get away with it; if a character shoots a fireball at their friend with fire resistance, let the items take the damage in his place if he fails the save.

[Deophaun]

I think you're kind of missing the point of what he's saying... It isn't that the character built a character specifically around fire resistance and now the DM is trying to overcome that, but that the fire resistance was a passive part of the build (from Tiefling) and the OP/DM wants to add some realistic side-effects and consequences on say wooden and cloth equipment from just waltzing through fire.
I missed no point at all, and got exactly what he was saying.

I didn't say the character built a character specifically around fire resistance. I said, he put character resources to it. Character resources that, I might add, will be rendered obsolete at higher levels. In this case, those resources happened to be exactly the right tool for the job. Adding "realistic" consequences to undo that is compromising the character. The tiefling player should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of his choices, not have them undermined, no matter how small those choices are.