Sundering a ring?

[Errant]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Without trying to say whether you "should" or "shouldn't" allow

That's funny. 'Cause there is a specific rule that says otherwise. It's called attacking a worn or carried object!

Hmmm, lets see, PHB…
“Held, Carried, or Worn Objects: Attacking a held, carried, or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity. Objects that are held, carried or worn by a creature, such as an evil sorcerer’s wand, are harder to hit. The object uses the creature’s Dexterity modifier (not its own –5) and any magic deflection bonus to AC the creature may have. You don’t get any special bonus for attacking the object. If it’s in the creature’s hand (or tentacle, or whatever), it gets +5 AC bonus because the creature can move it quickly out of harm’s way.”

Is that the section you were talking about? That’s funny, I don’t see where it says you can’t attack a ring someone’s wearing & I don’t see where it says what happens to that proverbial 57 hps left over after the ring is destroyed.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without trying to say whether you "should" or "shouldn't" al

Is that the section you were talking about? That’s funny, I don’t see where it says you can’t attack a ring someone’s wearing & I don’t see where it says what happens to that proverbial 57 hps left over after the ring is destroyed.

OK. I can't take it anymore. Are you always this dense? What the hell do you think "attacking a ring" is!?! Attacking a ring is "Attacking a held, carried, or worn object", which is exactly what I said! What the hell is wrong with you man? Forget it. I could get more useful feedback if I held this conversation with a friggin' matchbox. Thanks.

 

[Errant]

QUOTE]Originally posted by kreynolds
OK. I can't take it anymore. Are you always this dense? What the hell do you think "attacking a ring" is!?! Attacking a ring is "Attacking a held, carried, or worn object", which is exactly what I said! What the hell is wrong with you man? Forget it. I could get more useful feedback if I held this conversation with a friggin' matchbox. Thanks. [/QUOTE]

Hey, dude, take a breath, chill. If you remember, when I said “I like to abide by the principle “don’t say ‘no’, just tell them how hard it would be” except where there’s a specific rule that says otherwise, so just in case it'd help someone else who thinks as I do, I offered my take.”, (emphasis added)

You said, “That's funny. 'Cause there is a specific rule that says otherwise. It's called attacking a worn or carried object!”

And of course my response brought us back to your dummy-spit. My point was, the official rule, or at least the section I quoted, says nothing about what to with the damage “left over” from sundering a worn/held/carried item. Sorry if that went over your head.

Now I don’t expect any set of rules to cover every possible eventuality, but (to my knowledge) they don’t say the extra damage is ignored, the rules don’t say its passed on the wearer. So if you (or anyone else who has a polite opinion they care to offer) know of a section that covers this, please point it out, I take part in these discussions to learn too. If you don’t, then doesn’t that give us room to discuss our interpretations & approaches for handling the gap?

Assuming I haven’t missed a rule somewhere, I suggested making the ring harder to hit & passing on the extra damage to the wearer because (a) to me that potentially adds some heroic drama, imagery & effectiveness to the PCs actions; & (b) the extra effectiveness of the attack (destroying the ring AND damaging the wearer) is balanced by the increased difficulty of pulling it off.

(P.S. I ignored the xmen d20 crack because I made the Adamantium typo & I thought it was made in good humour. Was I wrong to think that?).

Edit - Corrected more of my typos, plus it took me ages to get post this thanks to the cookie problem, so apologies to the innocent if I'm dredging up a dead topic.

 

[kreynolds]

Hey, dude, take a breath, chill.

My bad. It was just too frustrating to try and hold a discussion with you that day. You seemed to bouncing back and forth and up and down like a super bounce ball in low-grav. I do apologize for snappin' at ya'. I shoulda just dropped the thread and left it at that. Hopefully someone else will come along to help.

 

[Errant]

KR, well it probably didn't help that I was p*ssed off with the trouble I was having posting.

I'd still be happy if someone can point out a section I've missed that covers the extra damage issue from sundering worn (etc) items, but no biggie.

 

[kreynolds]

KR, well it probably didn't help that I was p*ssed off with the trouble I was having posting.

It's cool.

I'd still be happy if someone can point out a section I've missed that covers the extra damage issue from sundering worn (etc) items, but no biggie.

There really isn't one. You'll have to rule 0 it.

 

[Gromm]

The Sage speaks...

Me:
This has become a big discussion with no obvious answers (at least none that make sense).

If someone is wearing a ring can you attack the ring and destroy it?

Skip:
Sure.

Me:
If so what is the rings AC? Does it get cover or concealment(from the other fingers of the hand, gloves, etc)?
We have calculated it based on the PHBs rules for attacking attended objects, but it 1)Doesn't feel right since you'd technically destroy the ring with no damage to the wearer and 2) Seems too easy to pull off at the higher levels.

Skip:
Both valid points.
Here's what the D&D FAQ has to say on a similar topic:

On a normal disarm attempt, you and the target make
opposed checks using a melee attack. But what if you're
trying to knock a wand out of a wizard's hand? Would
the wizard make a roll using only his Dexterity
modifier?
Use opposed attack rolls for any disarm attempts (the
better you are at combat, the harder it is to take things
away from you).
If the target of the disarm is not a weapon, and the
target is something that the defender has in hand or
carries on a belt or other fairly accessible place, the
attacker makes an attack roll against the item first. (A
normal disarm attempt against a weapon doesn't require
an initial attack roll, but that is because the weapon is
assumed to be in use and pretty easy to strike.) Use the
rules for attacking inanimate objects on page 135 of the
Player's Handbook. The item's Armor Class depends on its
size, as shown on Table 8ñ11; remember that a held,
worn, or carried object uses the wielder's Dexterity
modifier to Armor Class (instead of its own ñ5 penalty)
and gains the benefit of any deflection bonus to Armor
Class that the wielder has.
If the initial attack strikes the object, make an opposed
attack roll to see if the defender drops the item.
If the item being worn is particularly well secured to
the defender's body (such as a ring), an attacker probably
cannot knock it loose with a melee attack. In this case, you
have to attempt a grapple and take the item. Use the
normal grappling procedure. If you start a round and
have your opponent pinned (see page 137 in the Player's
Handbook) you can then attempt a grapple check to take
any item the opponent wears or carries. The item's size
modifier to Armor Class (from table 8ñ11 in the Player's
Handbook) applies as a modifier to your opponent's
opposed roll. If you win the opposed roll, you take the
item from the opponent. You cannot take away an item this
way unless the opponent wears or carries it someplace
where you can reach it. For example, you cannot dig an
item out of the bottom of a foe's pack. You can, however,
yank off the opponent's pack and then search it.

So, a ring's AC is:

Base 10
Size +8
Wearer's Dex mod (variable).

You sure could add a cover bonus, say half (+4) or three-quarters (+7). Note that a cover bonus allows you to have the occasional miss strike the wearer (see striking the Cover Instead of a Missed target, page 133 of the PH).

Note also that attacks on a creature's equipment provoke attacks of opportunity.




Skip Williams

RPG R&D

 

[blickish]

Entropy - What happens to the extra 57 points of damage when my Barbarian cuts that pesky kobold in half?

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, that's a good point. You could look at this from a practical point of view. If you were capable of doing 57hp of damage with one swing, would you attack the kobold or the ogre mage? 3E is a game of choices, and a similar choice is here. You chose to attack the ring and not the wearer. If you were capable of doing serious damage, maybe you're better off attacking the ring wearer instead of the ring itself.

Anyway, I do agree from a *realistic* standpoint, it would make sense for the damage to transfer to the wearer's hand. However:

1) In general D&D isn't realistic
2) There aren't really any good rules for damaging a specific body part (I know it's briefly discussed in the DMG) or for cutting off body parts, so allowing this will open up a can of worms.

Player: I attempt to chop off the wizard's hand
DM: You can't make a called shot
Player: But if he was wearing a ring on that hand I could?

I'd rather not go there.

IceBear