Combat, Sunder, Armor, some needed corrections.. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat, Sunder, Armor, some needed corrections.. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek
09-11-04, 02:19 PM First of all, why should Sunder even exist as a feat? All sundering is, is using raw power to break a weapon or destroy armor. Now, what I don't get is, why isn't sundering automatically done in combat? From the way the rules are, someone in full plate armor could get knocked down to 3 hp from 200 in a swordfight, without any harm to the armor, this doesn't make sense. I think that the actual characters should have fewer hit points, and allow armor to have the most. Much like a damage reduction rating. Armor needs to have an absorbing rating. Combing dodging, dex, and armor makes no sense. I read that someone was talking about leather armor being usless after 2 battles, well guess what? Leather armor is actually a very weak armor, full plate is a very strong armor. Of course it would last longer. I think combat should be designed where you try and hit first, and then armor comes into play with absorbing it. Just like damage reduction. Each armor will have it's own rating. If it is magical it will have the reduction that applies with it's enhancment. So say +1 chain mail would have +1/25 etc..just an example. Let me know what you think.
Darrett
09-11-04, 02:26 PM Because this would change the game entirely. If you want it to work that way, you can make a house rule, or play Call of Cthulhu (It has armour dealt with in this manner).

It's assumed that repairs to armour are done at a later time. Having a proficiency in the armour type means that you're able to do field repairs and keep your armour in working order until you get it properly done back at town. You could charge the players for this if you like.

Making armour a burden like that would only cause more players to become Monks, I would imagine.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek
09-11-04, 02:36 PM The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor.
Darrett
09-11-04, 02:53 PM The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor.

Yes, the armour is taking those hits. It's deflecting them away, and getting scraped up in the process. Armour's made to cause blows to deflect away, making the main force of the attack miss. It's not made to intercept the blow entirely.

You don't need a feat to Sunder. You only need a feat to not provoke an attack of opportunity while doing so.

Weapons would break in normal combat, but it usually wasn't because someone was really strong. If you hit a sword someone is holding on the flat side, the weapon is either going to be battered aside, or the two blades will meet and deflect off one another. Swords were -made- to bend. The edges of the blade are not made to bend, and you could break a blade when you hit it on the edge... however, your weapon would be just as likely to break.

The reason they don't allow armour to break while someone is wearing it is because it would be extremely difficult to do. A weapon only needs to break once to be useless, while armour would need to be systematically attacked until it fell apart. This wasn't something that would happen in battles, as generally, one hit that went past your armour would put you out of the fight.
macfry
09-11-04, 02:53 PM The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor.

You don't have to use the sunder action to damage someone's armor or weapon. You have to use the sunder action if you're FOCUSING on their armor or weapon. It represents attacking the weapon/armor specifically, and not the one holding it. You don't have to have the feat to do it, you just have to have the feat to do it well. The feat represents special training allowing you to attack someone's weapon without opening up your defenses.

A lot of things about dnd don't make much sense when held under scrutiny, but thats because to make them perfectly logical would make the game unplayable due to all the bookkeeping and complications. If you enjoy that kind of thing, theres nothing wrong with that... but maybe dnd isn't the system for you.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-11-04, 02:19 PM	First of all, why should Sunder even exist as a feat? All sundering is, is using raw power to break a weapon or destroy armor. Now, what I don't get is, why isn't sundering automatically done in combat? From the way the rules are, someone in full plate armor could get knocked down to 3 hp from 200 in a swordfight, without any harm to the armor, this doesn't make sense. I think that the actual characters should have fewer hit points, and allow armor to have the most. Much like a damage reduction rating. Armor needs to have an absorbing rating. Combing dodging, dex, and armor makes no sense. I read that someone was talking about leather armor being usless after 2 battles, well guess what? Leather armor is actually a very weak armor, full plate is a very strong armor. Of course it would last longer. I think combat should be designed where you try and hit first, and then armor comes into play with absorbing it. Just like damage reduction. Each armor will have it's own rating. If it is magical it will have the reduction that applies with it's enhancment. So say +1 chain mail would have +1/25 etc..just an example. Let me know what you think.
Darrett 09-11-04, 02:26 PM	Because this would change the game entirely. If you want it to work that way, you can make a house rule, or play Call of Cthulhu (It has armour dealt with in this manner). It's assumed that repairs to armour are done at a later time. Having a proficiency in the armour type means that you're able to do field repairs and keep your armour in working order until you get it properly done back at town. You could charge the players for this if you like. Making armour a burden like that would only cause more players to become Monks, I would imagine.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-11-04, 02:36 PM	The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor.
Darrett 09-11-04, 02:53 PM	The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor. Yes, the armour is taking those hits. It's deflecting them away, and getting scraped up in the process. Armour's made to cause blows to deflect away, making the main force of the attack miss. It's not made to intercept the blow entirely. You don't need a feat to Sunder. You only need a feat to not provoke an attack of opportunity while doing so. Weapons would break in normal combat, but it usually wasn't because someone was really strong. If you hit a sword someone is holding on the flat side, the weapon is either going to be battered aside, or the two blades will meet and deflect off one another. Swords were -made- to bend. The edges of the blade are not made to bend, and you could break a blade when you hit it on the edge... however, your weapon would be just as likely to break. The reason they don't allow armour to break while someone is wearing it is because it would be extremely difficult to do. A weapon only needs to break once to be useless, while armour would need to be systematically attacked until it fell apart. This wasn't something that would happen in battles, as generally, one hit that went past your armour would put you out of the fight.
macfry 09-11-04, 02:53 PM	The way D&D has it's combat and armor makes no damn sense what so ever. Why should you have to have a feat to damage someones armor or weapon. A weapon breaker, or a really strong person can do that. Wasting a feat on that is lame. During combat, what do you think is taking the brunt of all those hits...The Armor. You don't have to use the sunder action to damage someone's armor or weapon. You have to use the sunder action if you're FOCUSING on their armor or weapon. It represents attacking the weapon/armor specifically, and not the one holding it. You don't have to have the feat to do it, you just have to have the feat to do it well. The feat represents special training allowing you to attack someone's weapon without opening up your defenses. A lot of things about dnd don't make much sense when held under scrutiny, but thats because to make them perfectly logical would make the game unplayable due to all the bookkeeping and complications. If you enjoy that kind of thing, theres nothing wrong with that... but maybe dnd isn't the system for you.