Armor & Weapon Breaking

[AsheItachi]

It might just be me but in the games I GM this never comes up. I was wondering if people out there have a system to have this as a thing. Now the whole critical rolling and weapon breaking thing might be kinda lame cause thats a 5% chance to break your weapon.

I was wondering if when you attack someone lets say he has an ac of 20 (10 +4 armor +2 shield +4 dex)
You roll an attack roll of 13, now that says you dont hit him , but you hit his armor. Then you can subtract the harness vs the armor types hit points.
And if you want you can state your fighting with your dex at front or back.

This way people have to worry about the blows they take and there armors capabilities.

[Psyren]

No - characters are constantly moving during combat, and misses are considered to be glancing blows, turned/deflected strikes, outright misses, and other similarly inconsequential attacks. The only times we can say for sure that a blow hits the object squarely instead of the enemy behind it is (a) sunder attempts and (b) when dealing with the cover rules. So having a miss apply to the person's armor instead would be a houserule, and one that I don't think is advisable.

The big problem with the system you propose is that you get into all kinds of arguments over "did I miss because I hit his armor, did I miss because of his dex, did I miss because of his natural armor" etc. that have no clear answer unless the attack intentionally bypasses armor to begin with (e.g. brilliant energy or touch attack) in which case the point is pretty much moot. Using your own example below, the Dex and Armor bonuses are identical, so did you hit his armor or did he simply dodge? It adds another layer of complexity to slow down combat for no real gain. All this would do even if you forced the issue is make things like Bracers of Armor or Mage Armor much more attractive than the regular kind, because you are effectively punishing characters that wear armor.

[AsheItachi]

I can see your points , but honestly how often do monsters sunder? Rarely.... It almost seems pointless.

I can see the arguments about did it miss because of dex or deflection that way you could say your character fights with more intent on his armor being last in listing or dex first armor then deflection.
But on that note I could see how armor wearers (http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Extra+cheap+if+you+are+female+_3c5d969d588739055a9 2a43401136418.jpg) being "Punished (http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/guyspeed.com/files/2012/11/punisher-crotch-gun-3.jpeg)" But when you are someone who is a walking iron giant like a person in full plate armor and tower shield. When they are "hit" does it not damage the armor? shouldn't that be a thing in play ?

[Psyren]

I can see your points , but honestly how often do monsters sunder? Rarely.... It almost seems pointless.

If you're designing a rule, you should do so on the premise that the rule would get used. Saying "oh, this rule is fine because it will rarely come up" is not good design. You need to consider the possibility that it will get used, and think of the effects that will have on the rest of the game if it does. And the effect here is that armor becomes less valuable as a form of defense, because it becomes more likely to get damaged and even destroyed inadvertently just by regular combat. Worse, you are actually punishing the character more as his armor gets better, because the more attacks that miss him the more likely they are to strike his armor, destroy it, and then leave him vulnerable.


I can see the arguments about did it miss because of dex or deflection that way you could say your character fights with more intent on his armor being last in listing or dex first armor then deflection.

I you do this then even the slowest/most clumsy fighter has no reason not to say his armor bonus comes last, so as to minimize the chances that his armor will get damaged (because that is an outcome he doesn't want - armor is expensive, and difficult to replace in the middle of a dungeon.)



But on that note I could see how armor wearers (http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Extra+cheap+if+you+are+female+_3c5d969d588739055a9 2a43401136418.jpg) being "Punished (http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/guyspeed.com/files/2012/11/punisher-crotch-gun-3.jpeg)" But when you are someone who is a walking iron giant like a person in full plate armor and tower shield. When they are "hit" does it not damage the armor? shouldn't that be a thing in play ?

Again, why? What are you trying to accomplish? If it's just "realism" - then all you are really doing is putting the martial, armor-wearing character at a disadvantage that other types of characters don't have to deal with, as well as prioritizing non-physical sources of armor bonuses over the real thing.

Besides which, if you were swinging at someone in armor, you would not be targeting the armor - you would be targeting the gaps, joints, throat and other vulnerable areas. So it's just as realistic to say that a blow aimed at one of those areas would either miss the armor or strike it in such a way as not to be as damaging (since it wasn't going after the armor to begin with - that's what sunder attempts are for.)

[tyckspoon]

But when you are someone who is a walking iron giant like a person in full plate armor and tower shield. When they are "hit" does it not damage the armor? shouldn't that be a thing in play ?

A: D&D is a heroic game, even at low levels. Having your armor/shield/sword busted apart by the rigors of everyday combat is not heroic, and thus not really something the rules care to enforce.
B: If you want to do something like this, it's a low-level concern only - higher level characters have equipment that is both magic and probably made of special materials that are notably tougher than normal steel, which means it's pretty much impossible to have them be accidentally broken or significantly damaged by normal wear- and-tear. You aren't gonna bust a +5 Adamantine full plate unless you're doing it with a +5 Adamantine Sundering sword plus probably a feat or special power or 2.

[AsheItachi]

I'm just trying to see how to bring the broken condition into play. Its never used or comes up in the 4+ years i've been playing PF.

And in one of my games The paladin whose level 14 has an armor class of 35 and its almost impossible to hit him. And i'm tired of having to rely on things with touch attacks. Or large creatures that can almost kill in one full attack.

And I understand that you go for openings, But there are situations that call for the armor being damaged. Archers for example , penetrated most armors with there arrows. But I also get that battle has its hazards and in the RP styles when you got back to town is when you get those things patched up. So maybe im just reaching (http://www.funnychill.com/files/funny-pictures/reach-out.jpg).

Tho the original point (http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/point-of-view-pov-funny-horny-the-helicopter-demotivational-posters-1305567194.jpeg) was that I was looking for a variant style or anyone who has knowledge that a way this could work. I will say you guys have made it a little more clear it would be unfair. But I do feel there should be something more than just sunder that breaks weapons and armor. Even when it comes to mages all these amazing powerful spells but nothing that would target armor or weapons to destroy them.

[Deophaun]

Question: Why do you feel the need to nerf the Fighter?

[Psyren]

It sounds like you're trying to solve a specific problem with your player (high AC, hard to hit with regular monsters) with a very sweeping rule change (armor can be damaged and broken during regular combat instead of due to sundering.) 29 AC is a good benchmark for 14 using the monster creation table (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html#table-1-1-monster-statistics-by-cr) so he is indeed ahead of the curve. Do you know why his AC is so high? Are all his calculations correct?

You can target weapons and armor with spells just fine - Shatter and Disintegrate for example can be devastating. But remember that they made armor hard to destroy on purpose, because making it easy to break quickly goes in the other direction of making melee classes unable to contribute. They will get flattened with poor AC as more monsters hit them and more criticals get confirmed, plus they lose whatever enhancements were on the armor too like foritfication or energy resistance.

Compare for instance the 3.5 Bebilith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#bebilith) and the PF version. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/bebilith) This is a monster specifically designed to destroy armor, but the PF version got nerfed silly - he has to succeed on a CMB check to break it, then the player gets a reflex save, and even after all that the armor only gets the broken condition (i.e. it can be put back on and will still work, albeit be less effective.) In 3.5 it's just rip, damage, done, and if it's destroyed then it's lost forever.

[Kelb_Panthera]

35 is about where a melee character that level should be for ac. I'm wiling to bet that, if there are no miscalculations, the bulk of that is from armor and shield bonuses. Enemies with touch attacks should be able to hit very reliably and the shield can be sundered or disarmed by a skilled foe.

To your original point, it's probably a bad idea to add wear and tear to equipment.

Ask yourself these questions whenever you come up with a piece of homebrew or a house rule: what am I trying to accomplish? What would accomplishing this goal add to the game? Would that addition be a good thing for making the game more balanced /fun?

This idea fails on that last one. It tilts game balance even further in favor of casters and doesn't add anything to to the game that most players would find makes the game more engaging.

[AsheItachi]

It sounds like you're trying to solve a specific problem with your player (high AC, hard to hit with regular monsters) with a very sweeping rule change (armor can be damaged and broken during regular combat instead of due to sundering.) 29 AC is a good benchmark for 14 using the monster creation table (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html#table-1-1-monster-statistics-by-cr) so he is indeed ahead of the curve. Do you know why his AC is so high? Are all his calculations correct?

You can target weapons and armor with spells just fine - Shatter and Disintegrate for example can be devastating. But remember that they made armor hard to destroy on purpose, because making it easy to break quickly goes in the other direction of making melee classes unable to contribute. They will get flattened with poor AC as more monsters hit them and more criticals get confirmed, plus they lose whatever enhancements were on the armor too like foritfication or energy resistance.

Compare for instance the 3.5 Bebilith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#bebilith) and the PF version. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/bebilith) This is a monster specifically designed to destroy armor, but the PF version got nerfed silly - he has to succeed on a CMB check to break it, then the player gets a reflex save, and even after all that the armor only gets the broken condition (i.e. it can be put back on and will still work, albeit be less effective.) In 3.5 it's just rip, damage, done, and if it's destroyed then it's lost forever.

I wouldn't implement this in the middle of the game so its not to solve this problem its just that this is when the thought occured.

I guess 2 spells that do such things is ok but they are high level so i still find it strange. Now i know there might be a few others that could come into play as well that arent off the top of out heads.



Question: Why do you feel the need to nerf the Fighter?
Im not trying to nerf the fighter im trying to add some ...realism I guess to the idea of covering yourself in metal.


35 is about where a melee character that level should be for ac. I'm wiling to bet that, if there are no miscalculations, the bulk of that is from armor and shield bonuses. Enemies with touch attacks should be able to hit very reliably and the shield can be sundered or disarmed by a skilled foe.

To your original point, it's probably a bad idea to add wear and tear to equipment.

Ask yourself these questions whenever you come up with a piece of homebrew or a house rule: what am I trying to accomplish? What would accomplishing this goal add to the game? Would that addition be a good thing for making the game more balanced /fun?

This idea fails on that last one. It tilts game balance even further in favor of casters and doesn't add anything to to the game that most players would find makes the game more engaging.

Hes a paladin and I get that his role is to be the shield. And when he smites it just gets crazy.
Once again i'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea these armors and shields block many , many blows and never break. It seems unfeasible to think they are all indestructable.
Now Like i said critical failure rolls are not a good answer I was trying to see if anyone has any homebrew rules that fits into this area.

[Spiryt]

Im not trying to nerf the fighter im trying to add some ...realism I guess to the idea of covering yourself in metal.



But it WILL nerf fighters and other non magical characters even more.

And 3.5 is absolutely not 'realistic' in any of it's facets, so trying to add 'realism' in one particular random aspect won't likely end very well.



Once again i'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea these armors and shields block many , many blows and never break. It seems unfeasible to think they are all indestructable.


Characters also seem to take a lot of wound and never, never 'break'.

No real endurance system exists, characters can run and swing axes without end.

Freaking cat is likely to be able to deal damage to mailed, adult man.

And so on.

[Extra Anchovies]

I find myself once again plugging Mongoose Publishing's Conan: The Roleplaying Game. A character's Parry Defense equals (10+Str+class-derived parry defense+other modifiers) and their Dodge Defense equals (10+Dex+class-derived dodge defense+other modifiers), and whenever a character is attacked they must choose whether to dodge or parry (against ranged attacks, they have to dodge). Classes have varying dodge/parry progressions; the Soldier (fighter equivalent) is better at parrying, the Thief is better at dodging, the Scholar (casting class) sucks at both, etc. Armor functions as damage reduction (weapon finesse ignores DR but adds the DR value to the target's AC).

How is this relevant? It has what in my opinion are some of the best weapon and armor breakage rules I've ever seen. Whenever a character takes 20 or more damage (before armor-based DR) from one hit, their armor's DR is temporarily reduced (repairable with a craft check); you could translate this as reductions to the AC bonus. The weapon breakage rules would be harder to carry over, though, since it only triggers when the attack result exactly equals the defender's parry defense (i.e. when the two characters lock weapons).

[Spiryt]

If armor is supposed to break from the contact with weapons, then weapon should also be also getting damaged from the said contact...

Does anyone really care about getting that granular?

[Deophaun]

Im not trying to nerf the fighter im trying to add some ...realism I guess to the idea of covering yourself in metal.
Interesting. Have you added any realism to characters that throw pieces of bat guano at others and expect it to explode?

It's the selective infliction of "realism" that prevents mundanes from having nice things.

[AsheItachi]

If armor is supposed to break from the contact with weapons, then weapon should also be also getting damaged from the said contact...

Does anyone really care about getting that granular?

I was not just saying armor. I was just using armor as a example , but the Title did state armor and weapons.

Keeping in mind people usually wear the same armor after their first enchantment upgrade till the end of their career. So over that adventuring career it has seen , many many many dents and damages.



And 3.5 is absolutely not 'realistic' in any of it's facets, so trying to add 'realism' in one particular random aspect won't likely end very well.

I'm referring to PF but regardless of that, I do know it is a fantasy game. I'm finding it interesting that everyone out there thinks its crazy to think of armor having durability. There are apparently some amazing crafters in these fantasy worlds we are creating.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, a good shield wears -slowly- unless an enemy is deliberately trying to break it.

Armor, not so much. Hits that get past armor either hit the gaps or punch through, the former requires fairly minor repairs to straps or the like but the latter is more than a bit rougher on the gear. Hits that -don't- penetrate the armor, however, also don't wear on it very much. Armor is made of very damage resistant material. If it wasn't it wouldn't offer much protection.

If you really want realism, and I don't advise it in this case, then armor, and only armor, should have a -chance- of being damaged if the wearer is successfully hit.

[AsheItachi]

Interesting. Have you added any realism to characters that throw pieces of bat guano at others and expect it to explode?

It's the selective infliction of "realism" that prevents mundanes from having nice things.

Ok there is something to be said about asking for realism from something thats realistic such as armor durability. But then trying to say why am I not knocking on the unrealistic stylings of magic and spell casting is just besides the point. You can cop out on any of this and throw in the its a fantasy world saying.

[Deophaun]

I'm referring to PF but regardless of that, I do know it is a fantasy game. I'm finding it interesting that everyone out there thinks its crazy to think of armor having durability. There are apparently some amazing crafters in these fantasy worlds we are creating.
We are wondering why, in a game, you find that the Fighter needs to be taken down a peg. That's all. Has the fighter been overshadowing the Druid again?

[Raphite1]

Shatter is a level 2 spell...

If you really feel the need to wreck your player's equipment and impose an unfun handicap on one of the weakest classes in the name of realism, while leaving the most unrealistic classes untouched, why not just make them fight enemies that sunder?

[Psyren]

I'm referring to PF but regardless of that, I do know it is a fantasy game. I'm finding it interesting that everyone out there thinks its crazy to think of armor having durability. There are apparently some amazing crafters in these fantasy worlds we are creating.

We're not saying that, we're just saying that generally folks who wear metal casings for a living are competent enough to protect those casings from glancing blows. Thus direct sunder attempts are the only thing to worry about. It's simple for the player, simple for the DM, simple for the designer, simple for everyone.

You can certainly implement this or any other houserule but I think that (a) it will cause more problems than it solves and (b) not feel very fun to the player the first time his armor breaks mid-dungeon.

[Sudokori]

I think you got your answer. Why would you ever need something like armor durability and weapon durability in a game already as rules heavy as D&D. I had one dm who made all of us tally every single OUNCE our characters had with us and made us tally rations using FRACTIONS as each day went on. Adding the possibility of tracking cracks in armor would make it even worse. Don't be that dm. Just drop the whole topic and say "I'm only going to implement this if it becomes a issue" and you'll never have to deal with it again.

[Tommy_Dude]

I actually have something constructive to say about this.

When I was first starting roleplaying games, I didn't start with D&D/Pathfinder. I started with a modified version of Fallout Pen and Paper. In this they had a rule about armor and weapon degradation. Each weapon and armor had ten boxes of condition. If you got hit in combat, you'd fill in one of those boxes. If your gun jammed, or you failed to hit your target with a melee weapon you took filled in a degradation box on your weapon. If all ten of those boxes were filled, they were broken.

I would suggest you used a simplified system like this. Each time a character takes a hit, one box is filled. Each time a weapon misses (in the case of firearms, or bows), or hits (for all melee weapons) fill in a box. When 10 boxes have been filled the item has the broken condition but it's hp hasn't decreased. Then, to repair this armor or weapon it takes a few hours and a DC 15 craft check. But if you introduce this, make sure you do some sort of equal treatment to casters. Perhaps if they use all of their spell slots that day, or all of a certain level of spell slots they have to make a craft check to upkeep their spell book, or create a generalized material listing for spells. Perhaps a spell component pouch only has 20 uses total aside from focus materials.

[Psyren]

And I have a constructive reply:

Putting aside the obvious recourse of Eschew Materials, a spell component pouch is a whopping 5gp; degrade it and the caster will simply pull out one of the 5 dozen spare he walked into the dungeon with that morning. And it doesn't have to be masterwork, or enchanted, or made out of special materials or be a specific size or be shaped specially for the wearer in the case of full-plate etc. And degrading spellbooks, in addition to having no effect whatsoever on sorcerers/clerics/druids/bards/warlocks/any caster that doesn't ever use one, doesn't even make sense in the context of the game - the only time you use the thing is either studying it in the morning or scribing spells into it between quests. "Casting all your spells" or "all spells of X level" have nothing to do with the book at all, and it's pretty easy to avoid both scenarios anyway. And finally, even if you do degrade it, the caster can buy a blank one and copy everything over right before the binding falls off for a fraction of the cost it took to originally fill it.

TL;DR - there is no way to do such a system that will not penalize the martial class far more than the magic-using one without seeking refuge in a far worse kind of absurdity than that which simply keeps armor and weapons from degrading to begin with. Given that the martial class is already weaker than the magic-using one by design, this line of thought is utterly misguided at best and downright malicious at worst.

[georgie_leech]

I actually have something constructive to say about this.

When I was first starting roleplaying games, I didn't start with D&D/Pathfinder. I started with a modified version of Fallout Pen and Paper. In this they had a rule about armor and weapon degradation. Each weapon and armor had ten boxes of condition. If you got hit in combat, you'd fill in one of those boxes. If your gun jammed, or you failed to hit your target with a melee weapon you took filled in a degradation box on your weapon. If all ten of those boxes were filled, they were broken.

I would suggest you used a simplified system like this. Each time a character takes a hit, one box is filled. Each time a weapon misses (in the case of firearms, or bows), or hits (for all melee weapons) fill in a box. When 10 boxes have been filled the item has the broken condition but it's hp hasn't decreased. Then, to repair this armor or weapon it takes a few hours and a DC 15 craft check. But if you introduce this, make sure you do some sort of equal treatment to casters. Perhaps if they use all of their spell slots that day, or all of a certain level of spell slots they have to make a craft check to upkeep their spell book, or create a generalized material listing for spells. Perhaps a spell component pouch only has 20 uses total aside from focus materials.

Remember though that the Fallout and Fantasy RPG's have very different themes and feels to them. The equipment degradation in Fallout is to reinforce the scavenging that is ubiquitous in post-apocalyptic settings. Everyone needs to scavenge for parts, food, supplies; so do the players, and the way they mechanically incentivise that is partly with equipment that needs to be fairly frequently replaced. In D&D though, that sort of scavenging isn't a significant part of the theme.

[Sudokori]

In response to Psyren's post since I don't know how to do the quoting thing.

If weapon degeneration causes the martial classes to get weaker in comparrison to the magic classes, why not add a degeneration to the magic? I once knew a player who would spam gravity bow and have it as his only spell for the day, aside for a fireball spell. It's really simple to Fix issues like this. Make their magic degrade.

Now I'm not talking about them losing thier magic abilities, I'm talking about making thier spells less effective after each use of the same spell. Like if a wizard uses a 8d6 fireball on a Orc squad, make thier next fireball do 7d6, then 6d6, and so on, until it's at the bare minimum of 1d6 and can't go lower. You can basically use this with all spells in one form or another (get creative). This can be explained in a magical sense as "diluting the magical energies" or some other explanation im not creative enough at the moment to come up with. Eventually, if the magic user does not "repair thier spells by doing a ritual (components cost around the Same it would for a warrior to repair or replace their weapons) then that magic user become non-effective, like a fighter with broken weapons.

Keeping track might be a pain but just telling that player to mark thier sheet every time they use thier spell or having a copied spell list with tally marks can help. This could balance magic users against non-magic users if used without the weapon breaking thing in play on martial classes, but that's in bad taste to pick out wizards. So does that balance out the weapon breaking idea? Make magic weaker after repetitive uses? "Repairing" the magic costs as much as repairing weapons/armor. Honestly it's a good idea from my perspective if I had to implement it. But really, it's much easier not to have weapon/magic stuff needing repair every other session.

[Coidzor]

It's a whole lot of fiddliness and extra things to track that, ultimately, don't really add much to the game.

[Red Fel]

If weapon degeneration causes the martial classes to get weaker in comparrison to the magic classes, why not add a degeneration to the magic? I once knew a player who would spam gravity bow and have it as his only spell for the day, aside for a fireball spell. It's really simple to Fix issues like this. Make their magic degrade.

I see several issues with that.

First: A spellcaster has many spells at his disposal. A non-caster has maybe one backup weapon, maybe two. If an adventure goes on long enough that the non-caster's primary weapon degrades and breaks, and the caster's primary spell degrades and "breaks," the non-caster's effectiveness is crippled, while the spellcaster still has a not-insubstantial arsenal. A non-caster is far more reliant on each piece of equipment than a caster is on any single spell.

Second: Not all spells have a variable or scaling numeric effect. How do you degrade something like Grease (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/grease), for example? It doesn't deal damage, it doesn't trigger a save (unless targeting an object) or SR. It simply makes an area slippery, and it's a highly effective tool at various stages of play. How do you degrade it?

Third: Spells vary in utility. Weapons, for the most part, do not. A weapon serves one primary function - dealing HP damage. Occasionally, they have additional functionality, like giving a bonus to trip or disarm attempts. Spells, by contrast, can do HP damage, ability damage, inflict status ailments, alter terrain, enhance maneuverability, control NPCs, add NPCs to the map, and so forth. Comparing the two simply doesn't work. It's like comparing apples with antelopes.

Fourth: As Coidzor mentions, tracking either of these - degradation of weapons or of spells - is a major, nettlesome, thankless task, that doesn't add much to gameplay. It simply imposes a soft cap on your ability to do what you do anyway - adventuring and killing things - before you have to head back to town and find someone with a better Craft skill than your own to fix things up for a fee.

[TheIronGolem]

Keeping in mind people usually wear the same armor after their first enchantment upgrade till the end of their career. So over that adventuring career it has seen , many many many dents and damages.
I would dispute that claim, but even if we take it for granted, why would you assume the character isn't maintaining his/her equipment all this time?



I'm referring to PF but regardless of that, I do know it is a fantasy game. I'm finding it interesting that everyone out there thinks its crazy to think of armor having durability.

Nobody thinks that. What everyone is saying is that armor already has durability, and that there exists a perfectly serviceable mechanism for reducing it.


There are apparently some amazing crafters in these fantasy worlds we are creating.

Of course there are. They're making magic armor, after all.

[aleucard]

I don't remember who originally coined it (nor the 'official' name for it), but there's a line of thought that if the only thing your homebrew rule does is increase the fiddliness of being an adventurer with no benefit, then your homebrew rule isn't worth the KB it's stored in. If you must make equipment HP more relevant, allow me to propose my own idea which should (hopefully) boost realism AND give martials at least some nice things.

Basically, each piece of armor blocks a certain percentage of damage any time the wearer is hit. The percentage varies based on the armor type and damage type (for instance, metal armor don't do much of anything for electricity, but is pretty useful against non-precision melee), but its ability to soak that damage will obviously degrade over time. If it hits the 'Broken' condition without being destroyed, all it provides is maybe half it's normal AC (the enchantments are disabled while it has the Broken condition, restored when the condition is repaired), and it doesn't soak up any further damage whatsoever, even if normally it'd negate the damage entirely (dragon leather armor, for instance). The heavier the armor, both the higher the percentage damage blocked (overall at least, leather should be pretty useful against the aforementioned electricity) and the higher amount of HP damage it can soak before being rendered broken. Keeping track of how much damage is taken by the armor and how it interacts with the armor's individual resistances/immunities will be a bit of a bitch, but the players aren't going to complain about doubling up on their HP in the slightest if they have a single braincell between them. Casters don't get jack **** for the most part, but they don't need a leg up.

Sound good?

EDIT: For an idea on how to calculate the damage sensibly, how about rather than talking about it in terms of percentage put it in ratio (for example, 1 point after every 3 points of X damage type goes to Armor)? That'll be at least a little easier to understand in game-terms quickly, and if worded right rounding errors are basically impossible.

[Coidzor]

I think that's Grod's Law, named after GrodtheGiant's sentiments as laid out in an epiphany they had in one of jedipotter's threads.

[Psyren]

I think that's Grod's Law, named after GrodtheGiant's sentiments as laid out in an epiphany they had in one of jedipotter's threads.

Not quite - "Grod's Law" is that you can't balance a powerful ability by making it difficult or annoying for the player to use. Either some player will figure out an easy way to exploit it anyway (and disseminate that knowledge) and you may as well not have bothered, or people will ignore the ability entirely and it becomes wasted ink. Sacred Geometry is a great example of this.

What this DM is doing is taking a very average, baseline ability of the game (the ability of melee characters to wear armor, which they are expected to do) and making it weaker for no real reason. This change, if it affects anything at all, will serve to lower a martial character's WBL and can even make the game more difficult if their armor breaks mid-dungeon.

[aleucard]

Not quite - "Grod's Law" is that you can't balance a powerful ability by making it difficult or annoying for the player to use. Either some player will figure out an easy way to exploit it anyway (and disseminate that knowledge) and you may as well not have bothered, or people will ignore the ability entirely and it becomes wasted ink. Sacred Geometry is a great example of this.

What this DM is doing is taking a very average, baseline ability of the game (the ability of melee characters to wear armor, which they are expected to do) and making it weaker for no real reason. This change, if it affects anything at all, will serve to lower a martial character's WBL and can even make the game more difficult if their armor breaks mid-dungeon.

What about mine? Yeah, it means you gotta do constant maintenance, but there's at least some benefit, and it alone won't result in you losing your armor's enchantments entirely. Maybe even make its protection HP completely separate from its Sunder HP with the exception of the various hits to hardness and the like from the Broken condition sticking if Protection HP = 0?

[mashlagoo1982]

Going to throw in my vote as well and echo what many of the other posters have stated... do not implement an extra system to break weapons and armor.

There are plenty of ways to get around the character's AC. That said, there should also be plenty of times where their AC is relevant.
It seems that their character is build around the higher AC.
Implement a rule would be like having the wizard's spell book stolen... at somewhat predictable intervals. Unless done correctly (plot element to keep story going) it is only an annoyance.

Please don't break the rule of fantasy and start introducing "realism".

[Extra Anchovies]

What about mine? Yeah, it means you gotta do constant maintenance

Constant armor maintenance is boring simulationism. Play GURPS if you want that. Most D&D players never sharpen their blades in-game; should we introduce weapon dulling rules to compensate? No, we shouldn't. That is also boring simulationism.

[Sudokori]

In response to Red Fel

If magic users are so OP that they can make any class useless with simple spells then why doesn't everyone play a wizard?

Locked door? Who needs a rouge? Use a knock spell.
Army of orcs? Who needs a barbarian? Use a few fireballs and win.
A important enemy is escaping quickly on horseback? Who needs a ranger? Spam magic missile and kill him.

I could go on but I'm kinda tired because I got back from hunting deer. But the point is kinda clear. Wizards are so OP that they NEED to be nerfed if any semblance of party balance is to be made. How are your group mates going to feel when their entire character concept is replaced with a few castings of a certain spell?

Nerfnig the martial classes by making their main class features/required equipment break is just a big F U to every non caster in the book. So don't be a douche DM and forget about degrading armor in a world where some wahoo with a pointy hat can make the sky fall with the right magic words.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If magic users are so OP that they can make any class useless with simple spells then why doesn't everyone play a wizard?

Taste, mostly. While it's certainly true that a T1 caster can do anything a non-caster can do, usually better and/or faster, that more than somewhat defeats the purpose of playing such casters in the first place.

Why prepare or scribe knock when there's a rogue in the party?

Casters aren't so powerful that they -must- be nerfed, merely powerful enough that they must be played responsibly. A group of high power casters can make for a pretty epic game but a caster amongst normals can act as a force multiplier much more effectively than he can as a scene stealer.

[Red Fel]

What Kelb said.

My point wasn't that spellcasters aren't more powerful and versatile than non-casters; they clearly are. However, I similarly don't believe that they require a nerf. I don't think anyone should be nerfed. I don't like the concept of "nerfing." (I like Nerf products though. Those things are awesome for kids of all ages.)

My point was that implementing ability deterioration hurts everyone, but it hurts melees more. I think you agreed with that latter part. When equipment is the primary source of a non-caster's power, breaking equipment hurts them massively. My further position, however, is that imposing that same penalty on casters is still bad; it hurts casters less than it hurts non-casters, and it still doesn't resolve the fact that it's bad for non-casters.

It's like seeing someone rolling around on the ground because he's on fire, and trying to fix the situation by lighting another person on fire. Exactly how have we improved the situation?

[Sudokori]

So in response to the above post

It seems that martial classes are inherently unbalanced to the magical classes. So why don't we just balance it? Give every single martial class access to spells and there you go. Problem solved and wizards can stick their Tier 1 superior class crud straight up their arse and let everyone who likes to play fighters have fun. I mean, if we collected all the posts about how superior magic users are to martial classes and how fighters are inferior to the Oh-So-Powerful tier 1 wizards we could fill a very large sized dictionary full of the stuff.

Personal opinion is to get rid of magic completely and have items that give +# due to craftsmanship/quality materials and potions could be replaced with fast acting medicine and so on and so on. No more wizards ruining a boss fight that took 2 hours to create by spamming fireballs and such for ten rounds while everyone else either sits there or throws stuff. No more Swiss army nuke classes that ruin every encounter and challenge by pulling out a magic book and picking the right win button. No more repettetive arguments about how imbalanced the magic classes are versus the non-magic classes that seem to plague the Internet.

Oh and the armor and weapon durability thing is just there to increase the effectiveness gap between non-magic and magic classes.

[Artillery]

So in response to the above post

It seems that martial classes are inherently unbalanced to the magical classes. So why don't we just balance it? Give every single martial class access to spells and there you go. Problem solved and wizards can stick their Tier 1 superior class crud straight up their arse and let everyone who likes to play fighters have fun. I mean, if we collected all the posts about how superior magic users are to martial classes and how fighters are inferior to the Oh-So-Powerful tier 1 wizards we could fill a very large sized dictionary full of the stuff.

Personal opinion is to get rid of magic completely and have items that give +# due to craftsmanship/quality materials and potions could be replaced with fast acting medicine and so on and so on. No more wizards ruining a boss fight that took 2 hours to create by spamming fireballs and such for ten rounds while everyone else either sits there or throws stuff. No more Swiss army nuke classes that ruin every encounter and challenge by pulling out a magic book and picking the right win button. No more repettetive arguments about how imbalanced the magic classes are versus the non-magic classes that seem to plague the Internet.

Oh and the armor and weapon durability thing is just there to increase the effectiveness gap between non-magic and magic classes.

Without magic there are better systems than D&D to use. If a Wizard is ruining your boss fight with fireball, come on wizards prepare more than maybe two fo those a day. There are better 3rd level spells to have prepared normally or something specific if you know what you're getting into.

Armor and weapon degradation doesn't make sense if something misses you. Your equipment has hardness, if it get damaged you are forcing the magic characters, who are usually better at crafting, to fix it. If you have problems with a high AC melee martial player, target saves or use things like grappling. Enemies with summons are pretty common at that level range.

For melee vs magic, all day viable but limited in other ways compared to limited sustainability but variety. If you know what you are fighting magic is usually better because you can prepare for what you face more specifically. If you are a fighter and you know you are going to fight demons today what can you do besides having a cold iron weapon, or a silvered weapon for devils not much.

[Sudokori]

Armor and weapon degradation doesn't make sense if something misses you. Your equipment has hardness, if it get damaged you are forcing the magic characters, who are usually better at crafting, to fix it.

So you are saying that the Magic classes won't just say "no, go pay a blacksmith or something to fix it". If they do say "no" then that's forcing the martial classes to spend valuable skill points into being able to repair their stuff instead of other skills that would help them and the party to survive. Degregaion only makes sense in certain scenarios, like if the fighter was attacked by a acidic slime monster his armor being damaged and less effective would make sense. I'm sorry but my beef with magic vs martial is because my friend who I play with often reminds me how better wizards are than fighters. It gets kinda annoying when he says that every time we play, and whenever his wizard uses a spell or magic item to get us out of trouble. I can't count the times I've wanted my fighter to stab his guy in the neck while he's sleeping and get it over with.

[Tommy_Dude]

Maybe my GM doesn't run things correctly then...

In our games the Wizard has to have his spellbook on him to even cast the spell. But, that's the way I learned the game.

As far the poster who said "No one sharpens their blades." why not? The Whetstone in Adventurer's Armory (the same basic whetstone you can buy from the generic equipment lists) allows you to get +1 to damage on your first hit after sharpening. Takes like 15 minutes to do.

And I've ripped off the spell components from DDO. Each spell level has a certain number of spell components you have to buy. Each one costs a different amount depending on spell level, Eschew Materials does exist but I find my party actually gravitates towards wizards with this system. Not Sorcerors.

I do understand the point about different feels of games, but recently I've been running the Kingmaker AP set in Eberron.. the new story involves the players founding Stormreach with support from the houses. There are no smiths or spellcasters other than the party. It has a very gritty feel so the whole scavenging thing works here, but even I simply use a targeted Blindness spell with some other goodies to blind the martials then use other martials to Sunder if I'm feeling mean. (I've only done this in a boss fight against a Drow Cheiftan who has had time to study the party's tactics through scouts the party never made their perception rolls to see. I don't know what it is... but none of my players in this game roll over a 5 for perception and we are 5 sessions in.)

I was only trying to come up with something the OP could theoretically use that was simple and would give him what he wanted.

[Firest Kathon]

And in one of my games The paladin whose level 14 has an armor class of 35 and its almost impossible to hit him. And i'm tired of having to rely on things with touch attacks. Or large creatures that can almost kill in one full attack.

I don't really see the problem with it. If he's so hard to hit, enemies will stop trying to hit him. Why should I attack the large tin can over there, if there is a much more squishy rogue or wizard around?