Breaking an armor

[Gokken]

I was wondering how to brake items in 3,5?

seeing I am GM a game and i sorta wan't to punish this guy! also we played it for a long time so and this campaign they by share luck got rediculess stat scores so we want to make it more difficult

So i was wondering if a person is wearing various things lets say a leather armor and a wooden shield or metal shield. A heavy steel shield has 10 hardness and 20 hp? the person carrying the shield is struk by a mace for 30 damage he survives the shield so the broken now?

I know you can destroy armor by sundering it, but a big enough psyical hit like from a minotaur or something should do the same?

also metal items does not like acid that much same goes with fire and wooden items how does that rule work?

if you have any knowledge thanks in advance!

[Greenish]

I was wondering how to brake items in 3,5?Use Sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder) for weapons and shields, normal attacks against objects. Disintegrate also works well.


So i was wondering if a person is wearing various things lets say a leather armor and a wooden shield or metal shield. A heavy steel shield has 10 hardness and 20 hp? the person carrying the shield is struk by a mace for 30 damage he survives the shield so the broken now?No.


I know you can destroy armor by sundering it,No, you can't.


but a big enough psyical hit like from a minotaur or something should do the same?No.


also metal items does not like acid that much same goes with fire and wooden items how does that rule work?If you rule the metal in question has poor reaction to acid, allow the acid damage to ignore the hardness.

[Gokken]

what about a dragon spewing acid everywhere that is bound to destroy some items?

[eggynack]

If you rule the metal in question has poor reaction to acid, allow the acid damage to ignore the hardness.
Actually, it looks like acid damage generally ignores hardness. In the PHB, page 165, it says, "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."

[Greenish]

what about a dragon spewing acid everywhere that is bound to destroy some items?If the wielder rolls a Nat 1 on the save vs. the breath weapon, then there's a chance of the items being destroyed (though magical items get their own saving throws to avoid it).


Actually, it looks like acid damage generally ignores hardness. In the PHB, page 165, it says, "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."I have had this conversation enough times already.

[cerin616]

DM... Punish Player...
:smallconfused:
No one said that its a silly idea to punish the player for getting lucky?

[eggynack]

I have had this conversation enough times already.
I seem to be missing some tragic backstory involving your favorite armor and an orb of acid. I guess it might be vaguely ambiguous, if you think that they just didn't mention the hardness in that specific case. Either way, the way that acid interacts with objects is written somewhere, even if the specific meaning of those words is open to some form of interpretation which I'm currently unaware of.

[Deophaun]

what about a dragon spewing acid everywhere that is bound to destroy some items?
If the unfortunate target of the attack rolls a natural 1 on his Reflex save, then a random item could take damage. Otherwise, no.

[Segev]

Why do you want to "punish" this player?

[eggynack]

Why do you want to "punish" this player?
Yeah, that is somewhat concerning. I got all wrapped up in the actual questions about hardness, and missed the underlying oddness. Perhaps the armor you should be breaking is the armor around your heart and this player's heart, preferably outside the game.

[Greenish]

I seem to be missing some tragic backstory involving your favorite armor and an orb of acid. I guess it might be vaguely ambiguous, if you think that they just didn't mention the hardness in that specific case. Either way, the way that acid interacts with objects is written somewhere, even if the specific meaning of those words is open to some form of interpretation which I'm currently unaware of.This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620) is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275832) one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237544) of (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189602) those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254138) ever-repeating (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247594) arguments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245370). You'll excuse my impatience with the subject, I hope.

[eggynack]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620) is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275832) one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237544) of (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189602) those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254138) ever-repeating (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247594) arguments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245370). You'll excuse my impatience with the subject, I hope.
I'd figured it was something of that nature. I'm not too familiar with this odd corner of rules debate, so it may be worth checking out, with my eyes, and with my heart.

[Segev]

I'd figured it was something of that nature. I'm not too familiar with this odd corner of rules debate, so it may be worth checking out, with my eyes, and with my heart.

I suggest with your mind more than your heart. I was able to form a conclusion just from the opening post of the first link Greenish offered, and it actually changed my mind. It also wasn't based on the arguments the OP presented, but on the RAW he quoted.

[eggynack]

I suggest with your mind more than your heart. I was able to form a conclusion just from the opening post of the first link Greenish offered, and it actually changed my mind. It also wasn't based on the arguments the OP presented, but on the RAW he quoted.
It's really more just a thing I say. Something about my heart guiding me to the truth, or the spirit of RAW existing within us all.

[Segev]

Oh. I keep my heart in a box. >_> <_<

[cerin616]

I suggest with your mind more than your heart. I was able to form a conclusion just from the opening post of the first link Greenish offered, and it actually changed my mind. It also wasn't based on the arguments the OP presented, but on the RAW he quoted.

How so? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this, because i read that post and i completely disagreed with that OP. That may be biased because his re-rebuttle kind of irritated me.

[Segev]

Oh, I went in expecting to agree with the OP of that thread. Then I read the rules segments he quoted, and changed my mind; they seemed to indicate the opposite of his argument, and his argument either fell flat or actively persuaded me to the opposite of his position.

(Out of respect for not de-railing by bringing that argument forth once more, I suggest we get back on topic, though.)

[Captnq]

I shall consult the Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Section WSA:
RUSTING +1 Bonus - Destroys Armor.

Weapon Section:
Rust Cube: ignores hardness and does 1d6/round for three rounds to metal.

Also:
A targeted Dispel Magic will render the armor non-magical for 1d4 rounds, then it will be subject to the spell Shatter.

[cerin616]

So, to the OP, There is no way to make a melee attack with a weapon and break a target's armor (unless some class out there specifies you can, but I have yet to find one) so sundering his armor is out (by raw).

You may be able to disarm the characters armor while he is pinned depending on how you interpret the rules.

You can’t snatch an item that is well secured unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.
and you could make a str check to break it afterwards

Depending on how you interpret this, acid and sonic may ignore hardness while other energy does not.

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.

This right here means acid does ignore hardness and deals double damage against some objects. and its vagueness leaves it to DM discretion.

Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness..


and this states the same in the other direction

Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects.

[Segev]

Okay, since it comes up... the reason I think acid and sonic don't ignore hardness unless the effect creating them says it does is because of how the section comparing them to cold/fire/electricity reads. It talks about dealing damage "as it would to creatures." Well, if you're dealing damage to creatures with hardness, you would apply hardness to it. That it doesn't mention hardness explicitly in the acid/sonic section but does in the cold/fire/electricity section(s) is understandable because it mentions hardness in those latter sections specifically to point out that the halving of damage is done BEFORE hardness is applied, rather than after.

But, to each his own, and if you find your game runs better with sonic and acid blanket ignoring object hardness, go for it.


Regarding actually destroying armor...as long as it's metal, just throw a Rust Monster at the party. It's one of Gygax's oldest "screw you!"s in the game.

[Captnq]

I was wondering how to brake items in 3,5?
seeing I am GM a game and i sorta wan't to punish this guy! also we played it for a long time so and this campaign they by share luck got rediculess stat scores so we want to make it more difficult

BTW, I just want to comment, are you a victim of too much tweeting? Your sentence structure is hard to decipher.



So i was wondering if a person is wearing various things lets say a leather armor and a wooden shield or metal shield. A heavy steel shield has 10 hardness and 20 hp? the person carrying the shield is struk by a mace for 30 damage he survives the shield so the broken now?

No. You are talking about sundering. If you want to target shields, then you have to target the shield with a sunder attempt. Lance of Mangling (3.0) could be modified if you want to make a shield killer, however. Should work out to be a +1 bonus. Shatters shields on a crit.



I know you can destroy armor by sundering it, but a big enough psyical hit like from a minotaur or something should do the same?

Nope. Sorry. See my above post about trashing armor. You cannot target armor, usually.



also metal items does not like acid that much same goes with fire and wooden items how does that rule work?

Pity the equipment uses the owner's saving throw. Hey, do what I do, booby trap the outhouse. What warrior wears his armor on the toilet? A triggered, poisoned crossbow down deep in the muck. Something like Drow Sleep Poison should do the trick. Then a thief steals the armor (and his pride), and leaves him to be found by the rest of the party with a crossbow bolt sticking out of his ass.

[Segev]

Not to mention a ready-made reason to Fort. save vs. Filth Fever. Ewwww.