Should DR affect force damage?

[Keneth]

This has been bothering me for ages, but there always seems to be that one type of damage in D&D that's not really affected by any type of resistance or reduction. In 3.P, that's generally force damage (besides that "damage from a supernatural source" business in hellfire & co.). Force also has that kind of weird range of manifestation, from pure magical energy like the magic missile to a practically solid barrier of force (like wall of force).

I feel like DR should be able to reduce force damage, even if it is "magical force" (whatever that means), but I'm not sure whether that would be a good idea. Can anyone think of any obvious downsides? Barbarians being able to withstand magic missiles is not a downside.

[Slipperychicken]

I could see someone breaking Force down into bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage depending on the source, if you just treat D&D force like it's a material.

Also, DR is underpowered as all hell, and deserves a few buffs. PCs can almost never get a significant amount of it to matter anyway.

[bekeleven]

So your argument is that Force damage is just half-incorporeal bludgeoning?

[Fax Celestis]

The existence of DR/Force (as appearing on the Force Dragon) would imply that it does.

[Keneth]

I could see someone breaking Force down into bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage depending on the source, if you just treat D&D force like it's a material.

I was thinking raw force effects should probably count as all three physical types (B, S, and P). Although in 3.5 you have riverine, which means items could theoretically be sculpted from force and deal specific damage types.


So your argument is that Force damage is just half-incorporeal bludgeoning?

My argument is that it's a magical force, but it deals physical damage, rather than energy damage. Does it even count as energy damage? I don't think force is an energy type.


The existence of DR/Force (as appearing on the Force Dragon) would imply that it does.

I don't see DR/force on a force dragon, at least not in the SRD. That would be amusing though because magical effects explicitly are not subject to DR. This is partially fixed in Pathfinder FAQs for spells that deal physical types of damage.

[SinsI]

I think DR should be treated the same as Hardness - that is, it should apply to everything that does not specifically overcome it.

[Crake]

I don't see DR/force on a force dragon, at least not in the SRD. That would be amusing though because magical effects explicitly are not subject to DR. This is partially fixed in Pathfinder FAQs for spells that deal physical types of damage.

And even if it did have DR/force, that would mean that force damage would overcome the DR, which makes no sense, why would a creature of force be weak to force. If I recall correctly, force dragons are immune to force, so that would make even less sense.

[Brookshw]

I'd be fine with that as a change, an energy type with no ER or DR is kind of strange on some level.

[TuggyNE]

I'd be fine with that as a change, an energy type with no ER or DR is kind of strange on some level.

*coughnegativeenergycough*

[BWR]

I think DR should be treated the same as Hardness - that is, it should apply to everything that does not specifically overcome it.

The big problem with this idea is that blasters will be even less useful, even if you assume that magic spells bypass DR/magic (which would leave you back at squre two, if not one).

[Melcar]

DR X/- Does indeed reduce force damage. And fire and what ever damage you recieve!

[Cloud]

DR X/- Does indeed reduce force damage. And fire and what ever damage you recieve!

...Actually, energy damage is never reduced by DR. It's reduced by energy resistance (which is how we end up with Acid being an 'energy' but I digress).

Rules Compendium: "Damage reduction doesn’t reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."
SRD: "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction

Changing how DR works in relation to Force only really effects archers, who tend to use Hank's Energy Bow or the Force enchantment to bypass DR and be remotely useful. So your change would just make things harder any PC archer without really giving them any bonus (when was the last time monsters did force damage after all).

Also while Force damage is weird, I'm surprised you're not more concerned about positive and negative energy (which just to be more confusing aren't energy types as far as damage goes). Not that you should be concerned about them, but they're stranger than force.

[Valtu]

My argument is that it's a magical force, but it deals physical damage, rather than energy damage. Does it even count as energy damage? I don't think force is an energy type.

That's the impression I've had as well. I don't have a real strong opinion on the subject, but that was what came to mind.

There's also the Energy Substitution feat, which works with Fire, Cold, Lightning and Acid damage types. It doesn't say you can convert anything to/from Force or Sonic types. I would think that is implying that neither of those are a formal "energy type" (whether or not the word energy itself appears in flavor text or anything like that).

It seems that as far as Energy (for the purpose of being considered for Energy Resistance, Energy Substitution, etc) goes, you could use "elemental" interchangeably in most situations.

[SinsI]

The big problem with this idea is that blasters will be even less useful, even if you assume that magic spells bypass DR/magic (which would leave you back at square two, if not one).

Are they really that useless compared to, say, monk?

[Brookshw]

*coughnegativeenergycough*

*coughdeathwardcough*

But yeah, nothing I see horrendous about pos/neg likewise being added to the list of ER.

[Person_Man]

In my ideal D&D system, there should be no such thing as untyped damage or Force damage, because they give magical characters a way of bypassing various defenses that mundane characters don't have access to.

All damage should be specifically listed as Slashing, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Fire, Cold, Sonic, Acid, Electricity, or Spell (or some other catch all magic category for stuff that doesn't fit). A Resistance or Immunity protects against one specific type of damage. Damage Reduction protects against all types of damage except for one or more types that bypass it. (But is rarer and generally a much lower number).

It's easy to implement this as a house rule for 3.5/PF: If a spell, spell-like ability, supernatural effect, or other effect deals Force or untyped damage or some other type of magical damage that can't typically be resisted (Vile, Divine, Negative, etc), it instead deals Spell damage. Creatures with Spell Resistance deduct their Resistance amount from any Spell damage dealt against them, in addition to the normal caster check required.

It's one of the things that 4E handled pretty well, though I disliked the huge number of different key words.

[Keneth]

I think DR should be treated the same as Hardness - that is, it should apply to everything that does not specifically overcome it.

I've considered making this change way back when I was also considering armor as DR, but eventually I've decided against both.

Armor is still on my list of things to overhaul though, so maybe I'll give the DR for everything idea another consideration at that point.


Changing how DR works in relation to Force only really effects archers

That's not a problem then, archers (as well as other mundanes) get a lot of love in my games, and they have no trouble dealing damage.


*coughnegativeenergycough*

Positive and negative energy actually have corresponding energy resistances. Or at least they do in my game, but I'm sure I've seen in it in 3.5 too.


In my ideal D&D system, there should be no such thing as untyped damage or Force damage

Indeed, but I don't want to extensively change the wording of large amounts of text in the system, so my changes are generally more subtle.

I guess then the general consensus is that a way to reduce force damage is a good idea. Thanks for your input, guys.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't see DR/force on a force dragon, at least not in the SRD. That would be amusing though because magical effects explicitly are not subject to DR. This is partially fixed in Pathfinder FAQs for spells that deal physical types of damage.

Must be thinking of a different monster then. I know I've seen it somewhere.

[Psyren]

Actually I think this is a good idea. It would help balance force spells quite a bit. You'd need additional text in each of them to cover whether the spell is B/P/S.

[Keneth]

You'd need additional text in each of them to cover whether the spell is B/P/S.

Currently I've made it so that force effects count as bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and magic for the purposes of overcoming DR. If I feel the need to restrict it further, I might add exceptions to specific spells.

[Psyren]

Do they still affect incorporeal creatures and swarms*?

*i.e. Tiny or smaller

[Keneth]

Nothing has changed for incorporeal creatures or swarms. Although force effects never did have any special effect on swarms anyway, unless they were AoE. My houserule explicitly only affects damage reduction.

[Psyren]

Nothing has changed for incorporeal creatures or swarms. Although force effects never did have any special effect on swarms anyway, unless they were AoE. My houserule explicitly only affects damage reduction.

They didn't before, but changing them to physical damage (even physical damage that bypasses DR/magic) does have an interaction with swarms unless you specifically state that it doesn't.

[Keneth]

They didn't before, but changing them to physical damage does have an interaction with swarms unless you specifically state that it doesn't.

And that interaction is what?

[Psyren]

And that interaction is what?

Tiny Swarms take half damage from physical and Diminutive/Fine swarms are immune.

[Keneth]

Actually, tiny swarms take half damage from slashing and piercing weapons (and I've made force effect count as all three types to avoid shenanigans like that), while smaller swarms are immune to weapon damage, not physical damage.

[Psyren]

That gets into how you define weapons. Rays are weapons for instance, as are orbs and then there's the Spiritual Weapon spell which does force damage. Even something like Manyjaws or a Bead of Force might count. Granted most of these are single-target but there are ways to make weapons do area damage too.

You could even have a weapon that explicitly does area damage, like a blunderbuss, attack with force damage.

[Fax Celestis]

They didn't before, but changing them to physical damage (even physical damage that bypasses DR/magic) does have an interaction with swarms unless you specifically state that it doesn't.

No it doesn't. Swarms are not immune to mundane damage types, they are immune to weapon damage.

[Psyren]

No it doesn't. Swarms are not immune to mundane damage types, they are immune to weapon damage.

Addressed above.

[Keneth]

That gets into how you define weapons.

I define weapons as... weapons. Ta-da. And weapon-like spells, obviously.

Effects that deal physical damage are not automatically weapons. Ergo, swarms are not immune to physical damage.

[Psyren]

I define weapons as... weapons. Ta-da. And weapon-like spells, obviously.

Pithy, but does not address my question. Unless you specify that neo-force works on swarms like old-force did, then things like Bead of Force or force-damage blunderbusses will change how they interact with swarms under this alteration.

[Keneth]

That would imply that they worked as you think they do. By RAW, changing the damage type to force on a weapon, does not make it affect swarms any differently. Swarms are immune (or resistant) to weapon damage, period. Damage type is irrelevant.

Changing force to be affected by DR therefore changes nothing with regards to incoporeals (which have a listed exception for force) or swarms (which are immune to weapon damage).

[Psyren]

That would imply that they worked as you think they do. By RAW, changing the damage type to force on a weapon, does not make it affect swarms any differently. Swarms are immune (or resistant) to weapon damage, period. Damage type is irrelevant.

So by your logic, a flamethrower would not affect a swarm? How about a dragon pistol? Just trying to get a sense of where you draw that line.

[Keneth]

I draw the line at "effects that affect an area", which is what splash weapons, blunderbusses, flamethrowers, beads of force, etc. are.

[Psyren]

I draw the line at "effects that affect an area", which is what splash weapons, blunderbusses, flamethrowers, beads of force, etc. are.

But several if not all of those are weapons. So by your logic, swarms would be immune, wouldn't they?

[Keneth]

Specific trumps general. Why are you twisting my words? There is nothing blurry about the definition of weapon, and it has nothing to do with damage type. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

What am I twisting? If Swarms are truly immune to weapon damage regardless of type, then they should be immune to flamethrowers, splash weapons, spread firearms etc, shouldn't they?

If that's not what you're advocating then please clarify.

[Keneth]

They are not immune to it if they produce an effect that affects an area. It's an explicit exception that is exempt from the rule. I don't really see what makes you think that damage type has anything to do with it when at the core, the rule is clearly there to prevent attacking swarms with focused attacks, like trying to stab a pile of ants.

[Dr. Cliché]

I have to say, I'd be more interested in getting DR to work against physical damage from spells. :smalltongue:

[Crake]

Aren't swarms also immune to spells that target individual creatures, like rays and magic missile, and orbs anyway? Thus technically any force effect that only targets "a specific number of creatures" would do nothing, regardless of what kind of damage it does.

[Karoht]

DR/- I usually rule that as applying VS Force Damage. It's only a minor thing, at at it's peak (DR 10/-) it can shut down/greatly reduce... Magic Missile, Spiritual Weapon, Spiritual Ally. I mention a peak because 10/- is typically acquired by high level Barbarians. At the levels they obtain it, the damage inbound is often to the point where removing 10 isn't going to matter much, so including another damage type for it to affect isn't going to matter all that much either. It's a minor buff at best.

[Keneth]

I have to say, I'd be more interested in getting DR to work against physical damage from spells. :smalltongue:

This was fixed in Pathfinder, but I think it was never fixed in 3.5, which is just silly.


Aren't swarms also immune to spells that target individual creatures, like rays and magic missile, and orbs anyway?

Well, yes. But if you have an area effect that deals physical damage, it affects swarms normally. From what I gathered, Psyren seems to be of the opinion that B/P/S = weapon damage, so if I changed force damage into physical damage, it would stop affecting swarms.

[Fax Celestis]

What am I twisting? If Swarms are truly immune to weapon damage regardless of type, then they should be immune to flamethrowers, splash weapons, spread firearms etc, shouldn't they?

If that's not what you're advocating then please clarify.

Yes, they should be.

Logic check: Is the effect generated by what the game defines as a weapon in the equipment chapter, or by a weapon-like spell?
If yes, swarm is immune.
If no, swarm is not immune.

[Psyren]

Well, yes. But if you have an area effect that deals physical damage, it affects swarms normally. From what I gathered, Psyren seems to be of the opinion that B/P/S = weapon damage, so if I changed force damage into physical damage, it would stop affecting swarms.

I don't know of any BPS that affects Dim/Fine swarms, whereas elemental damage (normally) would, so long as it was AoE.


Yes, they should be.

I'm sorry, but that's plain ridiculous. You're saying a grenade can't/shouldn't be able to take out a beehive. It's nonsensical.

[Keneth]

I don't know of any BPS that affects Dim/Fine swarms, whereas elemental damage (normally) would, so long as it was AoE.

So you're saying that if I drop a tsunami (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/tsunami) on a diminutive swarm, it's gonna be just fine? That's about as nonsensical as your grenade vs. beehive example. :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

So you're saying that if I drop a tsunami (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/tsunami) on a diminutive swarm, it's gonna be just fine? That's about as nonsensical as your grenade vs. beehive example. :smallbiggrin:

Spiders are hardcore like that.

[Brookshw]

Spiders are hardcore like that.

And cockroaches =D

Fax already nailed the raw bits, whether they make sense is another matter.

[Keneth]

Well Fax is actually just as incorrect regarding that part. If a weapon produces an area effect, the swarm is affected normally. Otherwise splash weapons couldn't damage swarms, when they explicitly can as per RAW.

[Psyren]

So you're saying that if I drop a tsunami (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/tsunami) on a diminutive swarm, it's gonna be just fine? That's about as nonsensical as your grenade vs. beehive example. :smallbiggrin:

A grenade/splash weapon is a weapon, while a tsunami is not, so there is a distinction there :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

DR X/- Does indeed reduce force damage. And fire and what ever damage you recieve!

You're thinking of hardness; DR/- only affects weapon damage, not spells or most other things. Certainly not mundane fire. (Indeed, it doesn't even do anything to falling damage.)


*coughdeathwardcough*

That's an immunity, not a resistance. I was, in fact, quite careful in phrasing that. :smalltongue:


Positive and negative energy actually have corresponding energy resistances. Or at least they do in my game, but I'm sure I've seen in it in 3.5 too.

Positive does, negative, so far as I know, does not. Again, I was pretty precise.

[Talya]

*coughnegativeenergycough*

Check out the alternate racial trait "Deathless Spirit" here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar).

[Keneth]

A grenade/splash weapon is a weapon, while a tsunami is not, so there is a distinction there :smalltongue:

By your own admission, bludgeoning damage = physical damage = weapon damage, and by RAW, spells that deal physical damage are subject to DR in Pathfinder, so now you're just being stubborn. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

Check out the alternate racial trait "Deathless Spirit" here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar).

Interesting. So it exists in PF, just not 3.5.

[Keneth]

Interesting. So it exists in PF, just not 3.5.

Well, protection from negative energy (SpC 163) arguably gives you negative energy resistance 10, though for some inexplicable reason it is not worded as such. Possibly to allow healing via negative energy?

Anyway, I currently see no other problems with my rule, although I imagine my group's alchemist won't be particularly happy. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

By your own admission, bludgeoning damage = physical damage = weapon damage, and by RAW, spells that deal physical damage are subject to DR in Pathfinder, so now you're just being stubborn. :smalltongue:

No, I'm saying that weapons that dealt force, just like weapons that dealt any other kind of energy damage, could affect swarms before. I can kill a swarm with a grenade/splash weapon/flamethrower dragon pistol. Changing force from "force damage" to "bludgeoning/slashing/piercing" could alter that, since none of those are energy damage. Got it?

[Keneth]

Except the rules never mention the phrase "energy damage" anywhere in the swarm subtype description, nor is force generally considered an energy type.

Swarms have rules regarding weapon damage, which is damage that comes from any attack with a weapon, regardless of damage type. They also have a special exception regarding effects that affect an area which are most often (but hardly always) energy-based.

I know the rules for swarms are confusing and hardly thorough, but you're inferring a wording that simply isn't there.

Edit: And since we on the topic. A grenade generally deals piercing and bludgeoning damage along with fire. Are you saying a swarm would only take the fire damage from a grenade? :smallconfused:

[Talya]

Hmm. Nice edit.

Regardless, swarms have a specific vulnerability to all energy damage on weapons.


A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each hit, even if the weapon’s normal damage can’t affect the swarm.

It goes on to say that even a torch or a lantern does damage to them.

It also specifies that it is only the physical damage of a weapon to which swarms have any immunity.

Force is not energy damage, really, but it's also not physical damage, so a swarm would take full damage from a force attack.

[Keneth]

Huh, I forgot that was a thing in 3.5. It was removed in Pathfinder, so maybe that's what all the confusion is about.

[Theomniadept]

This reminds me of when I was explaining why Meteor Swarm sucked and I thought the bludgeoning damage had to go through DR. I was then led to a part of the rules that said magical damage does not apply DR. Even though Epic Level Handbook Force Dragons have DR/Force, I doubt that had been updated to mesh with the actual rules, so my guess is RAW, force is unblockable damage.

I'm conflicted on whether that should be houseruled. Force damage is 100% Evocation so I'm hesitant to nerf Evocation, especially since it's all gotta go through SR.

[Deophaun]

Well, protection from negative energy (SpC 163) arguably gives you negative energy resistance 10, though for some inexplicable reason it is not worded as such. Possibly to allow healing via negative energy?
It's because the designers seem to have been fairly adamant that the only "energy" types are fire, cold, electricity, acid, and sonic. If you could get negative energy resistance 10, then it might allow other things that were built on the assumption of there being only five energy types to also grant negative energy resistance X.

That said, Force is best understood as a flag that says "this attack works." That's really its whole reason for existence, and why spells that deal Force damage also tend to have lower damage caps than others of the same level (see: Orb of Fire versus Orb of Force; you're trading damage and a debuff for reliability).

[Darrin]

Epic Level Handbook Force Dragons have DR/Force, I doubt that had been updated to mesh with the actual rules, so my guess is RAW, force is unblockable damage.

ELH was 3.0, and under that edition force was considered a type of energy. However, Force Dragons never had DR/Force. They start out as DR 15/+2 and go up to DR 60/+12. The 3.5 Update booklet changed that to DR 10/magic up to DR 15/epic. Even if force damage does bypass their DR, their Immune to Force (Ex) ability means they just ignore the damage/effects entirely.

There are a few creatures out there with "Force Resistant", such as Amethyst Dragons, but that doesn't reduce damage, it just gives them a +4 save bonus (against magic missile of all things... really?). I think the only place I've ever seen DR X/Force was homebrew.

Force damage is almost always spell damage, so that's how it usually gets around DR. The only problem is when a weapon somehow gets [force] damage or a [force] descriptor without a spell effect:

Force property (MIC): Text says it bypasses DR.

Psychokinetic property (MIC): Text says it bypasses DR.

Hank's Energy Bow (WotC article): Text doesn't say, you're ****-outta-luck.

Crystal Helm soulmeld bound to Crown chakra (Magic of Incarnum): Melee attacks, does not bypass DR.

Riverine weapons (Stormwrack): Does not bypass DR, doesn't even have a [force] descriptor. The designer appears to have gotten as far as the "cool idea!" point, but then completely failed to think of the implications of what might happen if you make objects/equipment/weapons out of walls of force.

"Force" Breath Weapons: Amethyst Dragon (MM2), Ethereal Dragon (Draco), Radiant Dragon (Draco), and Tarterian Dragon (Draco). None of these have the [force] descriptor, and only the Ethereal Dragon's breath weapon is explicitly identified as a "force effect". But these are all (Su), and thus bypass DR. (Ex) breath weapons would be problematic, but I'm not sure any of those do force damage.

What else am I missing?

[Keneth]

What else am I missing?

The point of the thread. :smalltongue:

Inconsistencies about actual RAW aside, the original gist of the thread was about a house rule and its implications.

I have since implemented and pushed it. It's gonna undergo testing in the near future, but I don't foresee any issues.

[Talya]

If you're going to treat Force damage as physical damage, you have to assign each force attack with a particular type of physical damage. I think, for instance, that magic missile should be [Force][Bludgeoning], and therefore bypass DR/bludgeoning.

Also, Force effects are harder than adamantine (they are, in fact, infinitely hard), so it should always bypass DR/Adamantine.

[Keneth]

They're not infinitely hard. In fact, most "hard" force effects have a specific hardness listed. :smallbiggrin:

On one of the previous pages you'll note that I've made all raw force effects bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and magic for the purposes of overcoming DR. Some specific effects might be more restrictive, but at this point I can't think of any examples where that should be necessary.

I'll see whether or not I want to add extra types to it after we playtest it extensively. Unfortunately, the group that tests out most my houserules has recently become a lot less available, so any feedback is obviously appreciated.

[Talya]

They're not infinitely hard. In fact, most "hard" force effects have a specific hardness listed. :smallbiggrin:

On one of the previous pages you'll note that I've made all raw force effects bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and magic for the purposes of overcoming DR. Some specific effects might be more restrictive, but at this point I can't think of any examples where that should be necessary.

I'll see whether or not I want to add extra types to it after we playtest it extensively. Unfortunately, the group that tests out most my houserules has recently become a lot less available, so any feedback is obviously appreciated.

Hmm. "infinitely hard" comes about because force effects cannot be sundered or attacked directly - they generally are indestructable short of specific spells that can affect them.

[Keneth]

Speaking of indestructible force effects, I've been meaning to make spells like mage armor and spiritual weapon sunderable (is that a word? it is now, I suppose). I guess I could give them the same hardness and hp as other spells which are based on wall of force.

[Psyren]

They're not infinitely hard. In fact, most "hard" force effects have a specific hardness listed. :smallbiggrin:

In Pathfinder they do, and this was specifically added to give strong melee a fighting chance at beating them. In 3.5 their hardness was "no."

[Keneth]

In Pathfinder they do, and this was specifically added to give strong melee a fighting chance at beating them. In 3.5 their hardness was "no."

Indeed. I distinctly remembered my warlock's walls of force being destructible when I used them to stop moving ships, but then again, we were house ruling a lot back then too.

My 3.5-fu is getting weaker with each day. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't remember much about 3.0 either, except that Ambidexterity was a thing. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know why Pathfinder only went halfway though, they might as well have added hardness and hp to all lasting force effects.

[Psyren]

Well, mage armor can be dispelled unlike wall of force, so there's always that.

[Keneth]

How many classes actually have access to dispel effects? 5%? 10% at best?

Meanwhile, you sunder a mundane's armor, and the poor chump has to pay for a new one, or at least for repairs.

Yay, wizards. :smalleek:

[Slipperychicken]

How many classes actually have access to dispel effects? 5%? 10% at best?

Meanwhile, you sunder a mundane's armor, and the poor chump has to pay for a new one, or at least for repairs.

Yay, wizards. :smalleek:

You can't sunder worn armor.



Sundering (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder) a Carried or Worn Object
You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

You can, however, tear his armor off if you have him pinned. This can make grapplers very nasty if they decide to strip off an important piece of equipment (such as stat-boosters, death ward armor, or a ring of water-breathing).


Grabbing Items
You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack.

If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you. This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted above.

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.

[Keneth]

You can't sunder worn armor.

You can sunder armor in Pathfinder (along with anything and everything else). I think we've pretty much established that I'm speaking from a PF standpoint. Either way, it was just an example.