How do you sunder armor that is worn by your opponent?

[Mithreander]

I can agree with your assessment and errata except that hardness and hitpoint need to be defined better then that are now. A simple chart like the one they have for weapons, would suffice. I also would have to disagree with the half AC bonus when the armor is half damaged. Weapons in this system are not penalized for being damaged until they are broken completely. The same should be true for armor. It's easier to remember.

Also, your feat's prerequisites make little sense. I can understand Sunder as a prerequisite, but improved sunder is too specific. With Sunder, as a prerequisite, it explains that you have to learn how to strike a weapon without an attack of opertunity before being able to strike armor in a way that does not provoke one.

Just my opinion. Cheers.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

For example, in a fight against someone in full plate, the roll needed to hit the armor is, at the very least, 8 points lower than to make a regular hit. And that's not considering natural armor, shield, and enhancement bonuses. All that together could add, at high levels, up to, hmm, at least 20.

Keep in mind that only one-half of the damage is inflicted against the character, and then only if the sunder armor attack was high enough to hit that character's normal AC. See the latest proposal (above).

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I can agree with your assessment and errata except that hardness and hit points need to be defined better then that are now. A simple chart like the one they have for weapons, would suffice.

I actually have my own charts already drawn up for personal use.

I also would have to disagree with the half AC bonus when the armor is half damaged. Weapons in this system are not penalized for being damaged until they are broken completely. The same should be true for armor. It's easier to remember.

I read that new rule as well, but after considering the simplification that it offered, I decided that it was a bad rule change and disregarded it wholesale. Objects should reflect certain broken down qualities when they are reduced to half-hit points. I wouldn't, however, create any more increments than one-half.

While it's true that player characters aren't treated as any less effectual when reduced to 1 hit point, inanimate objects lack the willpower of sentient creatures (or the survival instinct of non-sentient creatures) to remain on their feet. Therefore, inanimate objects shouldn't function as well once their hit points are significantly lowered. What do you think Mithreander?

Also, your feat's prerequisites make little sense. I can understand Sunder as a prerequisite, but improved sunder is too specific.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is no Sunder feat prerequisite in Precise Sunder. There is no Sunder feat. There is only Improved Sunder in version 3.5 now.

 

[Mithreander]

Oops, looking at 3.0: sorry! (in reference to the sunder feat and improved sunder) Please disregard that as an antiquated reply. Sunder WAS a prerequisite for Improved Sunder in the Sword and Fist book.

As for the other part about lowering ACA when damaged by half... well if you have in place rules for the same type of behavior for weapons and other damaged inanimate object... then I suppose its fine.

 

[Norfleet]

Realistically, you wouldn't sunder armor worn by a person. The amount of damage you'd need to do to a suit of armor to render it completely or mostly unusable would almost certainly kill the wearer first. For a suit of armor to be "damaged" would go far beyond the level of damage needed to kill the person wearing it. For instance, to seriously damage a breastplate would require a great deal more than simply punching a hole through it, yet that hole would be quite likely to have killed the wearer already. You'd have to basically repeatedly punch many holes through it until it fell apart. A few holes through a plate doesn't significantly degrade the protective value of the armor: You'd have to turn it into Swiss cheese.

Still, if you REALLY want to destroy a character's armor, try the rust monster on a stick.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Oops, looking at 3.0: sorry! (in reference to the sunder feat and improved sunder) Please disregard that as an antiquated reply. Sunder WAS a prerequisite for Improved Sunder in the Sword and Fist book.

No worries, I thought that might be the case.

As for the other part about lowering ACA when damaged by half... well if you have in place rules for the same type of behavior for weapons and other damaged inanimate object... then I suppose its fine.

In the case of weapons, I treat damaged weapons (with 1/2 or less hit points) as their primitive weapon equivalents (–2 on attack and damage rolls; minimum damage 1) (see Extremely Low Tech, Stone Age, page 144 of the Dungeon Master's Guide).

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Realistically, you wouldn't sunder armor worn by a person. The amount of damage you'd need to do to a suit of armor to render it completely or mostly unusable would almost certainly kill the wearer first. For a suit of armor to be "damaged" would go far beyond the level of damage needed to kill the person wearing it.

I'll use the fingernail analogy again.

You can batter my fingernail, puncture my fingernail, or scratch my fingernail, but the finger underneath can remain unscathed. The finger underneath can also take some of that damage, but that depends on how well my fingernail was battered, punctured, or scratched in the first place. That's why I now divide damage equally between the armor and the wearer (only dealing damage to the wearer if the sunder attack was high enough to hit their normal *armored* AC).

Moreover, my fingernail would be considered "natural armor" by game definition. Worn armor is not even a part of our bodies, creating even more of a buffer zone (although slight) between character and armor.

For instance, to seriously damage a breastplate would require a great deal more than simply punching a hole through it, yet that hole would be quite likely to have killed the wearer already.

Sundering does not necessarily mean "creating a hole in something". In fact, "to sunder" means "to separate, divide, part, or sever". No hole punching involved.



Keep in mind as well, the sunder attack is an "abstraction" (like any special attack) that represents a myriad of possible attack results. Punching a hole in something is simply one possible interpretation.

 

[Mithreander]

Could you post the rendered version of your new addition? I think you really have something and would like to use it myself as a house rule (but am to lazy to do it my self)/ I'm very interested in the table for toughness and hit points for various armors.

Also, I asume that only weapons with the same enchantment level in +'s or higher will be able to effect magical armor?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Could you post the rendered version of your new addition? I think you really have something and would like to use it myself as a house rule (but am to lazy to do it myself). I'm very interested in the table for toughness and hit points for various armors.

I'm happy to say that those tables are already supplied for our convenience (pages 158 and 166 of the Player's Handbook).

Also, I assume that only weapons with the same enchantment level in +'s or higher will be able to effect magical armor?

Not anymore. In this latest revision of Dungeons and Dragons ... everything is vulnerable. Rather than making a +2 sword (for example) impervious to +1 sword, we now add +2 points of Hardness and +10 hit points (per point of enchantment bonus) to the listed Hardness and hit point values for items.

It appears that nothing is safe from sundering anymore.

 

[Mithreander]

Well, shoot! Looks like I'll really have to read the new rules after all! Bummer!