Armor and Sunder [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor and Sunder [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ellanon
09-11-04, 01:38 AM If I cannot sunder armor, why does it have hit points and hardness? When does the armor's hardness and hit points apply?

A fellow DM jokingly said that it only applies when sitting on the shelf. :rolleyes:

What is your take on it? Am I missing something?

(The final purpose of this inquiry is to develop a suitable decay system for armors and shields.)
Count Arioch the 28th
09-11-04, 01:43 AM The reason why they have it is in case you want to destroy armor that's not being worn.

You cannont sunder armor that is worn, but you can if thei're holding it for some reason.

The rule seems odd to me too, for the record.
crow0495
09-11-04, 02:11 AM Yeah, I can understand where you are comin' from. PC's run around all day with their armor on, apparently most of them sleep in their armor with no penalties, and can absorb massive damade like a sponge. How long can armor take this abuse and neglect?!?!?!?! I've talked about this with my gamers and they had different ideas. Table 9-8 and 9-9 out of the PHB list hit points and hardness for shields. So obviously they take damage. It also says armor has has hit points equal to 5 x its armor bonus. So there you go. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution.
crow0495
09-11-04, 02:57 AM Oops, mistake. Please ignore.
Ellanon
09-11-04, 02:59 AM How is this for a solution. My sarcastic DM friend and I came up with this...

Table 9-8 of the PHB (Thanks Crow!) states that steel armor has a hardness of 10. It also states that armor has a hit point total equal to their armor bonus x5.

So, let's look at Full Plate and Leather armor.

Full Plate +8 AC bonus / hardness 10 / hp 40
Leather +1 AC Bonus / hardness 2 / hp 5

For each 5 points of damage dealt to the armor beyond the hardness, your AC goes down by one point. When your AC equals 0, the armor is ruined and must be discarded or repaired.

Repair rules state that you can repair armor (appropraite Craft skill) with 1/5 the original cost of the item in materials, and a DC = 10 + original AC bonus. As a house rule, we have ruled that it takes an hour per point of original AC to repair the armor to full. If you wish to cut that time in half, you must have 1/2 the original cost in materials.

How does this sound to you guys?
quaiven
09-11-04, 03:02 AM it sounds ok to my tank in full plate, but anyone wearing leather is gonna hate it cause that means their armor would be useless after 1 or 2 fights since it can only survive 7 hp of damage
Ellanon
09-11-04, 04:18 AM it sounds ok to my tank in full plate, but anyone wearing leather is gonna hate it cause that means their armor would be useless after 1 or 2 fights since it can only survive 7 hp of damageThe cost and repair time would not balance that?
quaiven
09-11-04, 12:18 PM not really since someone in leather armor would basically have to replace or repair their armor every time they get hit. but all of this is moot, since the PHB clearly states on pg. 158 "You can't sunder armor worn by another character."
Ellanon
09-11-04, 12:37 PM not really since someone in leather armor would basically have to replace or repair their armor every time they get hit. but all of this is moot, since the PHB clearly states on pg. 158 "You can't sunder armor worn by another character."No, it isn't moot because this is specifically the reason I brought this subject up. The rules are there for taking into account armor and shields taking damage. Why anyone would want to sunder armor that is sitting on a shelf, I don't know. My friend and I figured that, if we did do a decay system, we may as well use the already established system for hardness/hit points.

(The final purpose of this inquiry is to develop a suitable decay system for armors and shields.)Again, this is my intent for looking into the rule and finding out why it is in place and how everyone feels about it. All the rules are there for sundering armor/shields, listed in the tables and the text. The only thing not allowing it is one sentence. Yet, without that one sentence, all the rules are there for sundering.

Besides, I thought that sundering meant that the item was held or worn. Otherwise, it falls in the break object catagory, right?
Darrett
09-11-04, 01:25 PM No, it isn't moot because this is specifically the reason I brought this subject up. The rules are there for taking into account armor and shields taking damage. Why anyone would want to sunder armor that is sitting on a shelf, I don't know. My friend and I figured that, if we did do a decay system, we may as well use the already established system for hardness/hit points.

Again, this is my intent for looking into the rule and finding out why it is in place and how everyone feels about it. All the rules are there for sundering armor/shields, listed in the tables and the text. The only thing not allowing it is one sentence. Yet, without that one sentence, all the rules are there for sundering.

Besides, I thought that sundering meant that the item was held or worn. Otherwise, it falls in the break object catagory, right?

Well, if you decide to go ahead with it, remember that the cost of armour/shields should be heavily reduced.

Armour would be -extremely- difficult to sunder. When it's on the shelf, you're likely not bashing at the face of it... you're hitting the weak spots on the armour, cutting leather straps, carefully aiming for fasteners on the inside of the armour, etc.

Since armour was made specifically to absorb damage, it'd be impossible to destroy it while it's being worn by a ducking, weaving opponent. Even a weapon would be fairly difficult, and the PHB really does make it too simple to destroy a held weapon. (It's unlikely a foe is going to oppose the force of your attack directly, that's just not smart parrying at all.)
Ellanon
09-11-04, 03:13 PM Since armour was made specifically to absorb damage, it'd be impossible to destroy it while it's being worn by a ducking, weaving opponent. Even a weapon would be fairly difficult, and the PHB really does make it too simple to destroy a held weapon. (It's unlikely a foe is going to oppose the force of your attack directly, that's just not smart parrying at all.)Then how would you rule in regards to amor/shield longevity? We want to have a rule to represent armor/shields/weapons/etc. wearing down.

At what point do you rule that an item has taken enough of a beating over time that it needs to be repaired? I brought up the sundering to put forth the idea that the rules already exist for armor longevity.
FriendoftheDork
09-11-04, 04:50 PM I simply assume that everyone with armor proficiency knows how to maintain their armor. Period.
Ellanon
09-11-04, 07:24 PM That's not sufficient to explain a single blow of massive damage. I want a system that takes into account the constant beating and the special occasions.

I want it to either record how many hits it has taken, or how much damage is being done to it over time. As the current hardness/hit point rules stand, it is far too easy to beat down someone's armor.

Does anyone have a decay system that they would like to share?
FriendoftheDork
09-11-04, 08:17 PM my point was, why bother?

But you could for example rule that on a critiqual hit you deal 1 damage per crit multiplier to a piece of armor, and use the existing hit points of the armor to determine it's condition. When it reaches 0 hp it becomes broken. Might sound simple, but we use just as simple system for calcualting damage on creatures!
Otaku Ashram
09-12-04, 08:17 AM Take a look at OGL Ancients from Mongoose Publishing. It's got an armor damage system that you could pretty easily adapt.
Egres
09-12-04, 10:02 AM Then,you are wondering why Armor have hardness and hit points?

Then,this means that you have never fought against a Psion targeting your armor with his Rays.......

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ellanon 09-11-04, 01:38 AM	If I cannot sunder armor, why does it have hit points and hardness? When does the armor's hardness and hit points apply? A fellow DM jokingly said that it only applies when sitting on the shelf. :rolleyes: What is your take on it? Am I missing something? (The final purpose of this inquiry is to develop a suitable decay system for armors and shields.)
Count Arioch the 28th 09-11-04, 01:43 AM	The reason why they have it is in case you want to destroy armor that's not being worn. You cannont sunder armor that is worn, but you can if thei're holding it for some reason. The rule seems odd to me too, for the record.
crow0495 09-11-04, 02:11 AM	Yeah, I can understand where you are comin' from. PC's run around all day with their armor on, apparently most of them sleep in their armor with no penalties, and can absorb massive damade like a sponge. How long can armor take this abuse and neglect?!?!?!?! I've talked about this with my gamers and they had different ideas. Table 9-8 and 9-9 out of the PHB list hit points and hardness for shields. So obviously they take damage. It also says armor has has hit points equal to 5 x its armor bonus. So there you go. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution.
crow0495 09-11-04, 02:57 AM	Oops, mistake. Please ignore.
Ellanon 09-11-04, 02:59 AM	How is this for a solution. My sarcastic DM friend and I came up with this... Table 9-8 of the PHB (Thanks Crow!) states that steel armor has a hardness of 10. It also states that armor has a hit point total equal to their armor bonus x5. So, let's look at Full Plate and Leather armor. Full Plate +8 AC bonus / hardness 10 / hp 40 Leather +1 AC Bonus / hardness 2 / hp 5 For each 5 points of damage dealt to the armor beyond the hardness, your AC goes down by one point. When your AC equals 0, the armor is ruined and must be discarded or repaired. Repair rules state that you can repair armor (appropraite Craft skill) with 1/5 the original cost of the item in materials, and a DC = 10 + original AC bonus. As a house rule, we have ruled that it takes an hour per point of original AC to repair the armor to full. If you wish to cut that time in half, you must have 1/2 the original cost in materials. How does this sound to you guys?
quaiven 09-11-04, 03:02 AM	it sounds ok to my tank in full plate, but anyone wearing leather is gonna hate it cause that means their armor would be useless after 1 or 2 fights since it can only survive 7 hp of damage
Ellanon 09-11-04, 04:18 AM	it sounds ok to my tank in full plate, but anyone wearing leather is gonna hate it cause that means their armor would be useless after 1 or 2 fights since it can only survive 7 hp of damageThe cost and repair time would not balance that?
quaiven 09-11-04, 12:18 PM	not really since someone in leather armor would basically have to replace or repair their armor every time they get hit. but all of this is moot, since the PHB clearly states on pg. 158 "You can't sunder armor worn by another character."
Ellanon 09-11-04, 12:37 PM	not really since someone in leather armor would basically have to replace or repair their armor every time they get hit. but all of this is moot, since the PHB clearly states on pg. 158 "You can't sunder armor worn by another character."No, it isn't moot because this is specifically the reason I brought this subject up. The rules are there for taking into account armor and shields taking damage. Why anyone would want to sunder armor that is sitting on a shelf, I don't know. My friend and I figured that, if we did do a decay system, we may as well use the already established system for hardness/hit points. (The final purpose of this inquiry is to develop a suitable decay system for armors and shields.)Again, this is my intent for looking into the rule and finding out why it is in place and how everyone feels about it. All the rules are there for sundering armor/shields, listed in the tables and the text. The only thing not allowing it is one sentence. Yet, without that one sentence, all the rules are there for sundering. Besides, I thought that sundering meant that the item was held or worn. Otherwise, it falls in the break object catagory, right?
Darrett 09-11-04, 01:25 PM	No, it isn't moot because this is specifically the reason I brought this subject up. The rules are there for taking into account armor and shields taking damage. Why anyone would want to sunder armor that is sitting on a shelf, I don't know. My friend and I figured that, if we did do a decay system, we may as well use the already established system for hardness/hit points. Again, this is my intent for looking into the rule and finding out why it is in place and how everyone feels about it. All the rules are there for sundering armor/shields, listed in the tables and the text. The only thing not allowing it is one sentence. Yet, without that one sentence, all the rules are there for sundering. Besides, I thought that sundering meant that the item was held or worn. Otherwise, it falls in the break object catagory, right? Well, if you decide to go ahead with it, remember that the cost of armour/shields should be heavily reduced. Armour would be -extremely- difficult to sunder. When it's on the shelf, you're likely not bashing at the face of it... you're hitting the weak spots on the armour, cutting leather straps, carefully aiming for fasteners on the inside of the armour, etc. Since armour was made specifically to absorb damage, it'd be impossible to destroy it while it's being worn by a ducking, weaving opponent. Even a weapon would be fairly difficult, and the PHB really does make it too simple to destroy a held weapon. (It's unlikely a foe is going to oppose the force of your attack directly, that's just not smart parrying at all.)
Ellanon 09-11-04, 03:13 PM	Since armour was made specifically to absorb damage, it'd be impossible to destroy it while it's being worn by a ducking, weaving opponent. Even a weapon would be fairly difficult, and the PHB really does make it too simple to destroy a held weapon. (It's unlikely a foe is going to oppose the force of your attack directly, that's just not smart parrying at all.)Then how would you rule in regards to amor/shield longevity? We want to have a rule to represent armor/shields/weapons/etc. wearing down. At what point do you rule that an item has taken enough of a beating over time that it needs to be repaired? I brought up the sundering to put forth the idea that the rules already exist for armor longevity.
FriendoftheDork 09-11-04, 04:50 PM	I simply assume that everyone with armor proficiency knows how to maintain their armor. Period.
Ellanon 09-11-04, 07:24 PM	That's not sufficient to explain a single blow of massive damage. I want a system that takes into account the constant beating and the special occasions. I want it to either record how many hits it has taken, or how much damage is being done to it over time. As the current hardness/hit point rules stand, it is far too easy to beat down someone's armor. Does anyone have a decay system that they would like to share?
FriendoftheDork 09-11-04, 08:17 PM	my point was, why bother? But you could for example rule that on a critiqual hit you deal 1 damage per crit multiplier to a piece of armor, and use the existing hit points of the armor to determine it's condition. When it reaches 0 hp it becomes broken. Might sound simple, but we use just as simple system for calcualting damage on creatures!
Otaku Ashram 09-12-04, 08:17 AM	Take a look at OGL Ancients from Mongoose Publishing. It's got an armor damage system that you could pretty easily adapt.
Egres 09-12-04, 10:02 AM	Then,you are wondering why Armor have hardness and hit points? Then,this means that you have never fought against a Psion targeting your armor with his Rays.......