PDA

View Full Version : Did you ever find a good set of rules in any system for damaging objects?



Myth27
2019-12-10, 02:19 PM
I never found a set of rules that I enjoyed, and I mostly play with de facto indestructible object but I don’t like it.

Man_Over_Game
2019-12-10, 02:30 PM
I think something like that is really dependent on the system itself. Otherwise, things like damage scaling or persistence would be really hard to track.


For example, you could have a simple item system that tracks damage of an item where its "wear" value determines what kind of penalty it gives you compared to its normal value. So a Sword that'd normally give you +5 damage that's received 3 "Wear" now only gives +2 damage, and is destroyed after a certain amount of "Wear".

But that doesn't work without considering a working damage system that could work around inflicting 3 units of damage, or reducing an items performance appropriately. Fifth Edition DnD, for instance, uses dice values (like 1d6) from weapons, so reducing its effectiveness isn't very easy. Weapons don't inherently have/give flat bonuses, so a simple sundering system probably wouldn't work (not without tracking HP, effectiveness, and other things for every individual item). But that's not a problem with sundering/item rules, that's a problem that's inherent to 5th Edition DnD.



The fact is, any perfect answer wouldn't just be able to describe the "sundering" solution, but it'd also have to go into great detail as to why that "sundering" solution works in its native system. I can't just give you a pitch on the Pathfinder sundering rules; I'd have to teach you almost everything about how Pathfinder combat/items work.

JoeJ
2019-12-10, 04:36 PM
What specifically are you looking for? In most of the games I'm familiar with, the rules for damaging objects are approximately as useful (and as realistic) as the rules for damaging characters.

Dr paradox
2019-12-11, 05:18 AM
I'll use D&D 5e outlines for armor class and hit-points as a baseline in my game, but I'll throw some common-sense metrics on top of it. For example, a bare fist or a wooden sap should not be capable of breaking an iron padlock, no matter how much time you put into it. By the same token, I won't roll to see if a stone golem can destroy a wooden door - I just narrate the resulting shower of splinters.

There's no great system for object damage in tabletop games for the same reason there are few great systems for object damage in video-games. They're almost never worth the effort it takes to simulate these things properly when there's more engaging things to get working. Tabletop games especially have the advantage of being able to wing it and come up with more verisimilitudinous results through common sense.

Telok
2019-12-12, 01:35 AM
Object/scenery damage methodology generally follows the same methods as pc/npc damage unless the system has a reason to care about scenery damage. The other consideration is how much the game designers want the pcs to interact with the setting and objects.

For example in Pazio Starfinder a lamp has hardness 5 and 8 hp. A first level character with a pistol does 1d4 or 1d6 damage. An 18 strength 1st level pc with a two handed melee weapon might do 1d10+4 and be able to break a lamp on a lucky roll.

I can't check the books right now but I recall both Champions and Shadowrun having drcent scenery damage rules. Of course Shadowrun has the potential for grenade chucking lunatics. Champions is a supers game where you're supposed to punch people through walls and throw automobiles.

Edit: Look to games where stunts, explosions, and pcs using/interacting with the game world are all supported. Games about kicking people in the shins untill they run out of hit points generally have both their object and social interaction rules equally undeveloped.

Martin Greywolf
2019-12-12, 03:45 AM
FATE is good for me. If the object in question isn't all that important, roll to create an aspect (e.g. "Broken door") and don't worry about it. If it is important, assign stats as you would to an NPC.

Man_Over_Game
2019-12-12, 01:36 PM
I'll use D&D 5e outlines for armor class and hit-points as a baseline in my game, but I'll throw some common-sense metrics on top of it. For example, a bare fist or a wooden sap should not be capable of breaking an iron padlock, no matter how much time you put into it. By the same token, I won't roll to see if a stone golem can destroy a wooden door - I just narrate the resulting shower of splinters.

There's no great system for object damage in tabletop games for the same reason there are few great systems for object damage in video-games. They're almost never worth the effort it takes to simulate these things properly when there's more engaging things to get working. Tabletop games especially have the advantage of being able to wing it and come up with more verisimilitudinous results through common sense.

Honestly, that wouldn't be too terribly difficult to duplicate.

Copy Pathfinder rules, using something like Hardness, which is a lower limit that ignores all damage below this threshhold. Call it its Glance limit.


Have it be that the item breaks if you ever deal 2x Glance in a single strike. Call it Break limit.

An item loses -1 durability if you hit it between its Glance and Break limits, which deducts directly from its Glance limit (and so translates into -2 from its Break).

If Damage to durability = D
Base Glance value = G

Glance = G - D
Break = 2 * (G - D)


If your Iron Padlock has a Glance limit of 10, someone is swinging with a 2d6, it'd look something like this:


83.3% chance: Glance, 16.7% chance: Hit. (Fence G=9, B=18)
72.2% chance: Glance, 27.8% chance: Hit. (Fence G=8, B=16)
58.3% chance: Glance, 41.7% chance: Hit. (Fence G=7, B=14)
41.7% chance: Glance, 55.5% chance: Hit. (Fence G=6, B=12)
27.8% chance: Glance, 69.4% chance: Hit, 2.8% chance: Break. (Fence G=5, B=10)
16.7% chance: Glance, 66.6% chance: Hit, 16.7% chance, Break. (Fence G=4, B=8)
8.3% chance: Glance, 50% chance: Hit, 41.7% chance, Break. (Fence G=3, B=6)
2.8% chance: Glance, 25% chance: Hit, 72.2% chance, Break. (Fence G=2, B=4)
8.3% chance: Hit, 91.67% chance: Break. (Fence G=1, B=2)
100% chance: Break


Compare this to an Iron Golem who does 5d6 that deals about 2.5x as much damage as someone with the 2d6 Hammer, but destroys the iron fence 100x faster. Only thing you'd have to track is the base durability of the object and a +/- modifier.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-12-20, 08:06 AM
You don't need much, honestly. Some sort of basic "your attack must be this strong to damage this object" limit, to prevent things like the wizard punching his way through a stone wall*, and some sort of tracker (hit points, an extended check, whatever) for moments when "how long does this take" matters. Otherwise, you really don't need more than "with a few good kicks, you knock the door off its hinges."


*Depending on setting/genre, it's possible that the fighter should be able to do this.

Mastikator
2019-12-20, 08:56 AM
I once had a game where items simply had a hardness value, if they received damage greater than their hardness they would lose hardness equal to the amount the damage exceeded hardness. Eg a shield has hardness 15, you use it to block a 18 damage attack, the shield loses 3 points of hardness and is now 12. Once it was down to 0 it was destroyed.
We also ran with "if a weapon did more damage than it had hardness it would lose 1 point of hardness".

The game was very gritty in terms of mortality and treasure and this worked really well. It gave a kind of "you impale the troll's head with your spear but it chipped in the process, pulling it out may break it" feel to the game.