Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Witch 09-22-07, 08:32 AM	Good day, gentlemen and -women. In a new campaign I started, a player of mine made a character with an adamantine weapon. She believes this will automatically damage any armor a creature she hits wears. I am quite certain she is wrong. However, I currently can't think of specific arguments as to why this is untrue. If you could supply me with some, I would be most grateful. If she is correct, I would also like to hear why. Thank you.
runestar 09-22-07, 08:46 AM	You sound different.... Anyways, there are no rules for sundering armour, nor does the adamantine weapon state anything about hurting armour.
Witch 09-22-07, 09:03 AM	You sound different.... I noticed that too, myself =) In any case, I'm mostly looking for some confirmation on what I believe to be the case. I don't like making ad hoc judgements "yes" or "no", and since she felt rather disappointed that it didn't do that, I thought I'd check. Anyways, there are no rules for sundering armour, nor does the adamantine weapon state anything about hurting armour. Her reasoning, I believe, is "but my weapons is smacking at armor when I'm hitting people". Because it does sort of make sense for adamantine weapons to damage the armor they're hitting, I couldn't exactly come up with a valid explanation yet.
runestar 09-22-07, 09:24 AM	Her reasoning, I believe, is "but my weapons is smacking at armor when I'm hitting people". Because it does sort of make sense for adamantine weapons to damage the armor they're hitting, I couldn't exactly come up with a valid explanation yet. I believe that is the key reason people use for positing that armour should grant dr, rather than improve your AC. I have no ready answer to this. My take is that sundering armour in dnd simply means you beat his AC score and deal damage on a successful hit. For example, when you beat the knight in fullplate's AC, it might be construed that you somehow found a weak chink in his armour, or perhaps managed to skewer him by piercing your spear right through his chestplate. This also poses the problem of how you differentiate a "sundering of armour" from "I rend his armour to strike at his flesh behind". Somehow, the armour remains functional regardless of how badly it is rended by your foe. So I guess that you could "technically" say that the armour is being sundered with every hit, just that the effect is the foe taking damage, rather than the armour itself being damaged. I am rambling, aren't I? I really have no idea how to express this coherently...:embarrass
sapient 09-22-07, 11:00 AM	Actually the argument does make sense. There are no reason why damage made shouldn't weaken armor in the long run. That is a natural consequence of the force applied to the attacks. But I would guess that the current rules are a kind of compromise between detail and playability. I have played other games were weapons and armors always suffered wear & tear, and it was chore to track that after every fight. (And after every adventure you handed them to the blacksmith for a touching up anyway, so why bother except to delete some gold once in a while...) I believe that using the sundering rules, it could be handled. The hardness and hit points of armor certainly could be computed. But the attack would have to made explicitly to sunder armor, unless the basic rules were permutated also. But that doesn't make such damage automatic. If you want it to, you could house rule in that any attack that overcomes the hardness of the armor, will damage it automaticly (as well as the person recieving the blow, of course). Or that bludgeoning and slashing damage would. (That is what i would recomend.) But if you choose not to adopt house rules like this, effectivly stoping sundering of armor, don't view it as an arbitrary ruling. It is not arbitrary - it is a decision made between detail/reality and playability. Those decisions aren't arbitrary just because the outcome aren't always the necessary consequence of some logic. Rather they should be seen as pragmatic, I think.
deanruel 09-22-07, 12:00 PM	There's about 14 reasons why this wouldn't work in any sense. I'll go over the few I think matter the most. This argument goes back to the oft argued dichotomy of whether taking HP damage means being hit or just being winded more and allowing yourself to more likely get hit later. Since this is a gray area argument (with both sides being right in particular areas) it is literally possible that your player's character could go an entire battle without ever getting "hit" by foes just worn down by the aspect of dodging them, and likewise might never "hit" that opponent until that final killing strike which lops his head off or some such. In addition even if you were hitting someones armor with an adamantine weapon it wouldn't negate the armor at all. Just because something is higher up on the hardness scale doesn't mean it just blazes right through other materials like a hot knife through butter. If you'd like to test this out just take a stainless steel knife and try to slice through a block of wood. In no universe does having a harder substance allow you to pass through a softer one. Hardness usually comes into real life in manufacturing, because you cant grind or shape a substance with a softer one. (meaning diamond rings have to be cut by diamond tipped machines) Finally and perhaps most importantly, SHE CANT DO IT BECAUSE ITS NOT IN THE RULES. Now before I continue I want to make it clear that I think this would be a fine houserule and I universally support good houserules. But make no mistake it would be a houserule. Claiming that you -can- do something because you can't specifically find something that says, in words, you -cant- doesn't make you right. It makes you ignorant. By that logic I can use daily spell slots to hold items in because they're "slots" and it doesn't say I can't. You could also decide to beat dungeon adventures by simply opening up your mouth and eating the entire dungeon in one gulp because the rules don't say you cant. The rules tell you -how- to do things you -can- do. It would be impossible for them to spell out everything you can't do. Also, you do sound a -lot- different. Are you sure you're Witch? Say something Witch-ish.
Witch 09-22-07, 12:20 PM	This argument goes back to the oft argued dichotomy of whether taking HP damage means being hit or just being winded more and allowing yourself to more likely get hit later. Since this is a gray area argument (with both sides being right in particular areas) it is literally possible that your player's character could go an entire battle without ever getting "hit" by foes just worn down by the aspect of dodging them, and likewise might never "hit" that opponent until that final killing strike which lops his head off or some such. Personally, I'm not on that side due to Cure spells. In addition even if you were hitting someones armor with an adamantine weapon it wouldn't negate the armor at all. Just because something is higher up on the hardness scale doesn't mean it just blazes right through other materials like a hot knife through butter. If you'd like to test this out just take a stainless steel knife and try to slice through a block of wood. In no universe does having a harder substance allow you to pass through a softer one. Hardness usually comes into real life in manufacturing, because you cant grind or shape a substance with a softer one. (meaning diamond rings have to be cut by diamond tipped machines) She doesn't say it negates the armor, though. I.e. the armor bonus is still there. She says she destroys it. Due to the fact that Adamantium explicitly says it ignores hardness less than 20, this is darn annoying. I can't imagine how a frontal hit with an adamantine flail right at an armor wouldn't hurt it. Finally and perhaps most importantly, SHE CANT DO IT BECAUSE ITS NOT IN THE RULES. Well, while I may know the rules quite well in general, I think it's fairly known that I'm not that big on following the rules just because they are the rules. I like my rules to make sense, and I currently don't see the sense behind her ability not working. However, I do see imbalance in it. Also, your use of spell slots to hold items is a heavily exaggerated example. Also, you do sound a -lot- different. Are you sure you're Witch? A man posts one question that he normally wouldn't ask because he knows the answer, and everyone tries to deliver him to a shrink with an identity crisis. I posted this mainly because I want to hear the arguments against it, so I could present them to her more systematically, as I couldn't immediately think of anything except "...it doesn't explicitly say so". Say something Witch-ish. Like what?
Dog_O_War 09-22-07, 12:53 PM	Unless the attack is specifically against the armour itself, then the armour takes no damage; this is covered under the sunder rules. If you need specific examples look at the bebelith (I believe; one of those demon/devil spiders has an attack that automatically damages armour). Yes when you picture it in your head, you will see the weapon hitting the armour to do damage; this is a trick of reality, and since D&D is a fictional game, reality does not apply. Unless you've added rules where armour is damaged when a person is attacked, then it simply does not happen because to damage weapons and armour (as I said before) is a sunder attempt. If you'd like to show her why she does not want this, have every attack made against her and the other players damage weapons and armour. Since players usually pull in 10 times the amount of attacks they dish out, they'll soon be equipment-less (and very angry against her). I wouldn't actually use what I've said against them, I would just say it as a reminder to why this is a bad thing (also, you could say that evey time a weapon deals damage over it's own hardness that it too takes damage; another scary thought). These are just some of the friendly reminders as to why you do not automatically damage armour/shields on attacks. Also, if you're using armour as DR, stop. It puts too much value on power attack and combat expertise. Not to mention gives players inflated ego when confronting physically weak monsters, and reasons to whine when fighting heavily armoured ones.
1 ton ghost 09-22-07, 02:36 PM	personal opinion and house rule for me an' ma' homies (insert ghetto, "no he di'int!" here): best to just have upkeep. that is, in PC downtime, yeah, they gotta' patch up their armor, shields, weapons like anything else. typically, we say, "hey cleric, for a nice donation to your church can you Make Whole this suit?" failing that, figure out a working solution to Craft, etc. should this be ignored, you are w/in your right to assign further ACP or even lower AC particularly after brutal fights w/ high end dmg and the like. we had to do a quick figure on some dwarven adamtine fullplate vs. a bebilith and it was rough, but it worked. there should be Sundering rules for armor, but i wouldn't even know where to begin. best guess is to examine shield sunder and go from there.
Mojo_Rat 09-22-07, 04:23 PM	Id like to also point that this 'adamantine weapons destroy armor' rout is a very bad direction to go for PC's the most important reason being that no PC wants this used against them. Seriously. Okay the rules and then Give them an encounter in which some of the bad guys have Adamantine weapons. After whatever tank your party has Has their armour theyve spent thousands on destroyed the view may change. Functionally it comes down to if the player wants to destroy items she has to follow the sunder rules
runestar 09-22-07, 09:59 PM	A man posts one question that he normally wouldn't ask because he knows the answer, and everyone tries to deliver him to a shrink with an identity crisis. Actually, it is not so much about what you asked, but rather, how you asked it. The Witch I am familiar with (on these boards at least) tends to post in a rather gruff and direct manner. His points are concise and to the point, with little/no effort directed towards niceties or pleasantries. Contrast this with your previous post asking people about the appropriateness of your spell revisions. There, you sure didn't bother greeting people, sugar-coating your words or even thanking people beforehand for their replies.:P To be honest, you almost sound like a completely different person in your initial post, so much that I wondered briefly if your "female friend" had someone logged in using your account to post this question instead...
Roog 09-22-07, 10:15 PM	Good day, gentlemen and -women. In a new campaign I started, a player of mine made a character with an adamantine weapon. She believes this will automatically damage any armor a creature she hits wears. I am quite certain she is wrong. However, I currently can't think of specific arguments as to why this is untrue. If you could supply me with some, I would be most grateful. If she is correct, I would also like to hear why. Thank you. 1: Ask her if she would like this rule applied to hits her character takes. Adamantine may be harder than a steel breastplate, but steel is harder than leather, or robes, or gold. Would she like the items she is wearing to take damage every time she gets hit? 2: Reminded her of the consequences of applying this to opponents. I.e. if you have a tough fight and manage to defeat your opponent, most of the loot will be destroyed. 3: If she still wants to do it, ask the rest of the party questions 1 and 2. This is a situation allot like critical hits that maim; it not only creates more work for the GM, it also disadvantages players compared to their opponents (since the PCs are around for more than 1 fight).
Witch 09-23-07, 04:32 AM	Actually, it is not so much about what you asked, but rather, how you asked it. The Witch I am familiar with (on these boards at least) tends to post in a rather gruff and direct manner. His points are concise and to the point, with little/no effort directed towards niceties or pleasantries. I tend to be more elaborate when the thread is my own. For example, the Iron Siege post also starts with a greeting. When I create a thread in which I expect people to tell me things I am quite in doubt on, I'm not against adding a few more words to thank them - they are making time for me, after all. Contrast this with your previous post asking people about the appropriateness of your spell revisions. There, you sure didn't bother greeting people, sugar-coating your words or even thanking people beforehand for their replies.:P There, I'd done a lot more work, ofcourse. In any case, I've done the elaborateness before. Mostly elsewhere, but here as well. To be honest, you almost sound like a completely different person in your initial post, so much that I wondered briefly if your "female friend" had someone logged in using your account to post this question instead... Not really. Although I did want her to be able to read the post without feeling offended.
Sagetim 09-23-07, 01:01 PM	Good day, gentlemen and -women. In a new campaign I started, a player of mine made a character with an adamantine weapon. She believes this will automatically damage any armor a creature she hits wears. I am quite certain she is wrong. However, I currently can't think of specific arguments as to why this is untrue. If you could supply me with some, I would be most grateful. If she is correct, I would also like to hear why. Thank you. you have ot make a sunder attempt to damage items. IF she is sundering, then yes, she can damage their items. However, sundering without the feat causes an Aoo, and has a -4 to hit I think.
Knightblde 09-23-07, 01:34 PM	Page 158 of the PHB (leather version) states that "you can't sunder armor worn by another character." So doesn't that answer the question? Hardness, which is what Adamantine ignores, only comes in to play when sundering/breaking an object. If you could sunder armor, it would only matter for the first round or two in combat, making it pretty useless. As far as house rules, I think making it so one could sunder armor would only destroy your fights.
Witch 09-23-07, 01:36 PM	So doesn't that answer the question? Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks!
Vharuck 09-23-07, 04:15 PM	So sundering armor is out of the question, as per the rules. But I like the way your player's thinking, so why not throw her a bone? Make up a feat! Slicing Adamantine Strike You mastery of adamantine weapons allows you to use the material's natural properties to bypass the armor and shields of your opponents. Prerequisities: Str 15, BAB +8, must have used an adamantine weapon in at least 3 combat encounters Benefit: When attacking with an adamantine weapon, your target's armor and shield bonuses to AC are treated as 1 less (this cannot reduce the bonus of either the armor or the shield to below 0).
Sagetim 09-23-07, 05:30 PM	So sundering armor is out of the question, as per the rules. But I like the way your player's thinking, so why not throw her a bone? Make up a feat! Slicing Adamantine Strike You mastery of adamantine weapons allows you to use the material's natural properties to bypass the armor and shields of your opponents. Prerequisities: Str 15, BAB +8, must have used an adamantine weapon in at least 3 combat encounters Benefit: When attacking with an adamantine weapon, your target's armor and shield bonuses to AC are treated as 1 less (this cannot reduce the bonus of either the armor or the shield to below 0). that's waaay too good. And what happens against stuff with natural armor? like dragons? hacking away the scales? and...aren't there armor pulling off hammers for this kind of thing? I know they existed in real medieval warfare. They would be used to rip platemail off and stuff.
sapient 09-23-07, 05:40 PM	(...)Hardness, which is what Adamantine ignores, only comes in to play when sundering/breaking an object. If you could sunder armor, it would only matter for the first round or two in combat, making it pretty useless. As far as house rules, I think making it so one could sunder armor would only destroy your fights. Depends on how you houserule it in. There would be several different ways. As I understood the original question, the thought was that since Adamantine bypasses the hardness of an object - as per the description - Adamentine weapons would deliver damage to armor without having to deliberatly use sunder. THAT would be very powerful, of course. But to make sundering of armor work, armor would have to be assigned hardness and hit points. And armor being armor, hardness could be quite high, certainly higher then the average for that material. (Armor is not inch-thick, then it would be impossible to wear due to weight. But its hardness and hit point would easily be as a two inch sheet of the same material, reflecting the metalurgical technique used to make it.) If anyone would deliberatly choose to sunder armor, in the begining of a fight, then they would not deal damage to the person wearing it. Or at least not as much. If they attack the person, they shouldn't do full damage to the armor. On way to reflect this would be to have the damage dealt when not deliberatly sundering, be based only on the strength bonus. And vice versa - if sundering armor, the only damage dealt to the person would be the strength bonus. (The strength bonus represents the force from the blow, while the rest of the damage is deflected from the person by the armor one tries to sunder since for example cutting leather straps et.c. would be glansing blows at best.) Now, you would also have to have a system that reflects the partial loss of armor. One blow - or even a few blows - would not destroy the whole armor. So basically you would have to completely sunder the armor at least six times (head, two arms, torso, two legs) for someone to loose all of the armor. The most obvious way to do this, would be to let the AC be lowered by one for each successfull sundering. (Then the AC bonus from the armor could also in some way be used to reflect how much of the body it cover. It would not be exactly intuitive, but it would be workable.) There would also have to be rules covering masterwork and magical armor (higher hardness and hit points, to begin with, and when the effect of the enhancement goes) as well as different materials. (Would adamantine armor stand up to adamantine weapons?) Such a system could work - the different restrictions on how much damage could be made each round (and lowering damage made to the subject at the same time) and that only part of the armor would be destroyed at a time would balance the effects of introducing it into the combat system. It would make the skill Craft (armorsmithing) and the spell Mending much more valuable. But it would take MUCH more time and effort to track and note.
Vharuck 09-23-07, 09:00 PM	that's waaay too good. And what happens against stuff with natural armor? like dragons? hacking away the scales? and...aren't there armor pulling off hammers for this kind of thing? I know they existed in real medieval warfare. They would be used to rip platemail off and stuff. It's not really damaging the armor mechanically. Though flavor-wise and in-game the weapons are slicing through the armor or shields, it can be written off as normal wear and tear that's repaired off-screen. Also, it might give an effective +2 bonus to attacks if your opponent is using both a shield and armor (rarer than you initially think, considering that most opponents aren't even humanoid). But that was just a quickly thought up feat.
BruceLeeroy 09-24-07, 12:07 AM	That's actually a pretty good feat. In a recent campaign, we had a monk who fell in love with his adamantine quarterstaff and wanted to be able to sunder anything. He took two homebrew feats, after improved sunder, that allowed him to sunder armor and magical weapons of a higher bonus than the one he was wielding. It sounds very powerful, but in practice didn't help him very much. The DM told him he would have to find out the varying hardness and hitpoints of different sized armors, for one. He made a table for small, medium, large and huge armors, which after some revision by the DM, was accepted. Then we fought giants wearing little to no armor, undead with natural armor, monstrous spiders...etc. When we finally fought some humanoids with armor that could be sundered, he ****** off the warblade by sundering a magical shield and breastplate. Moral of the story: Sundering is perhaps a little overrated. Lewts is good.
runestar 09-24-07, 09:47 AM	I like the idea of letting your adamantine weapon ignore a very small quantity of your foe's AC derived from wearing armour, maybe -1 or -2 max, else it takes away too much from the brilliant weapon property.:)