Dragon #295

[Palskane]

Alright, maybe it's just me, but I'm a bit confused.

In Dragon #295, in the Sage Advice section, the Sage is asked about attacking shields and armor. Specifically, "What's the procedure for attacking a character's suit of armor or shield?"

The Sage goes on to talk about hardness and hitpoints, as can be expected. A little ways down he talks about armor saying, "When a creature wears a suit of armor, you cannot attack the armor without attacking the wearer (although some creatures have special attacks which get around this limitation)."

Now, my question is, what kind of doublespeak is that? Unless the item is unattended, of course you're going to attack the wearer as well.

Can you, or can you not, target somebody's armor if they are wearing it? If not, why? Wouldn't that replicate "wear and tear" a bit more realistically than at the present?

(And please, no arguments about how D&D isn't a realistic game, etc, etc.... I'm trying to understand why one can sunder a sword, a shield, items held such as wands and staffs, but armor, unless a creature has the rend ability or equivalent, is seemingly immune).

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

 

[kreynolds]

Can you, or can you not, target somebody's armor if they are wearing it?

No.

If not, why?

Because armor would have a lifespan of roughly 2 combat sessions.

Wouldn't that replicate "wear and tear" a bit more realistically than at the present?

Yes, it would. You can't hit someone's armor without hitting them, and you can't hit them without hitting their armor. However, if you support "wear and tear" of armor, it's gonna become a real pain the arse when you have to repair or completely replace it every other fight. Think about how many hit points a suit of armor has, then think about how many points of damage a 15th level fighter will take in one combat session. His armor wouldn't last 5 rounds.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

You're welcome.

 

[Mahali]

Specifically, "What's the procedure for attacking a character's suit of armor or shield?"

The Sage goes on to talk about hardness and hitpoints, as can be expected. A little ways down he talks about armor saying, "When a creature wears a suit of armor, you cannot attack the armor without attacking the wearer (although some creatures have special attacks which get around this limitation)."

Now, my question is, what kind of doublespeak is that? Unless the item is unattended, of course you're going to attack the wearer as well.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

It'd be trying to Sunder the item. I wouldn't let someone go for the armor though. Shields are fine.

Rust monsters and some oozes/molds have attacks that effect items instead of character.

 

[hong]

Can you, or can you not, target somebody's armor if they are wearing it? If not, why? Wouldn't that replicate "wear and tear" a bit more realistically than at the present?

(And please, no arguments about how D&D isn't a realistic game, etc, etc.... I'm trying to understand why one can sunder a sword, a shield, items held such as wands and staffs, but armor, unless a creature has the rend ability or equivalent, is seemingly immune).

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

No, you can't specifically target a creature's armour. The reason you can attack swords and shields is because the designers apparently perceived a demand to make combat a bit more involved than simply "I hit/you hit". It's a game playability reason, not a realism reason -- the same reason there are now rules for tripping, disarming, bull rushing, etc.

Even the rend ability doesn't let you destroy armour. The ability is described as ripping someone limb from limb, but that technically just kills them; it has no game effect on the equipment they're using. Again, this is for game playability reasons, no doubt. There are _some_ creatures that have the ability to destroy armour (eg the bebilith), but IMO these creatures break the unstated assumptions of D&D combat. What, a bebilith can poke holes in armour but a colossal dragon can't? Silly, I say.