Sundering a ring?
- Thread starter Darklone
- Start date
further examination of sundering a ring
Attacking an object is different than attacking a creature. Armor rules are different than cover (except in the case of the tower shields). These systems are completely separate.
Why give the ring cover?
Cover is defined as any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to AC.
For this example, sundering a ring, the defender is the ring. The ringbearer's fingers (the ones next to the finger wearing the ring), give the ring cover - they are a physical barrier between the attacker and defender. Simply making a fist gives the ring over 50% cover.
It would be just like having a friend on either side of you. Now if someone attacks from directly in front of you, you will have no cover (note that the ring still gets cover because the other fingers are tiny and occupy the same space). However, if the attacker was adjacent to you, one of your friends (the one on that side), could provide cover to you.
Where it really gets weird is if the character knows you are going for the ring so he waves his hand about wildly back and forth. Would this give a blur effect and subsequently a 20% miss chance due to concealment?
Attacking an object is different than attacking a creature. Armor rules are different than cover (except in the case of the tower shields). These systems are completely separate.
Why give the ring cover?
Cover is defined as any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to AC.
For this example, sundering a ring, the defender is the ring. The ringbearer's fingers (the ones next to the finger wearing the ring), give the ring cover - they are a physical barrier between the attacker and defender. Simply making a fist gives the ring over 50% cover.
It would be just like having a friend on either side of you. Now if someone attacks from directly in front of you, you will have no cover (note that the ring still gets cover because the other fingers are tiny and occupy the same space). However, if the attacker was adjacent to you, one of your friends (the one on that side), could provide cover to you.
Where it really gets weird is if the character knows you are going for the ring so he waves his hand about wildly back and forth. Would this give a blur effect and subsequently a 20% miss chance due to concealment?
kreynolds
First Post
Re: further examination of sundering a ring
So, if I wave my middle finger right in the face of a fighter, I should get 9/10ths cover! Cool!
EvilGM, this isn't the house rules thread, bub. I'm not saying you have a bad idea, I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily belong here.
EvilGM said:
So, if I wave my middle finger right in the face of a fighter, I should get 9/10ths cover! Cool!
EvilGM, this isn't the house rules thread, bub. I'm not saying you have a bad idea, I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily belong here.
Last edited:
Re: Re: further examination of sundering a ring
Now, now, kreynolds. This isn't really the place to air delusions of grandeur about the size of your middle finger, either.
kreynolds said:So, if I wave my middle finger right in the face of a fighter, I should get 9/10ths cover! Cool!
Now, now, kreynolds. This isn't really the place to air delusions of grandeur about the size of your middle finger, either.
are you confused?
We are not talking about attacking a creature. We are talking about attacking an object. I'm using the official rules taken from the PHB and DMG.
Be the ring and find your defenses.
Now if you decide to flip your adversary off, you're giving up some cover on the ring and making it much easier to hit. Makes sense, no?
If you want to get into using parts of your own body for cover, now that would be a house rule. Attacking an object, however, is a different story. I can't believe you are opposing me on this.
Maybe I should make a poll.
Do you think EvilGM is..
_ Crazy
_ a Genius
We are not talking about attacking a creature. We are talking about attacking an object. I'm using the official rules taken from the PHB and DMG.
Be the ring and find your defenses.
Now if you decide to flip your adversary off, you're giving up some cover on the ring and making it much easier to hit. Makes sense, no?
If you want to get into using parts of your own body for cover, now that would be a house rule. Attacking an object, however, is a different story. I can't believe you are opposing me on this.
Maybe I should make a poll.
Do you think EvilGM is..
_ Crazy
_ a Genius
kreynolds
First Post
Re: are you confused?
I figured that. The whole "Sundering a ring?" thread title kinda tipped me off.
Specifically, we are talking about attacking a ring.
And I wear a leather skirt and ballet slippers on Sundays. Oh. Bad example, but you get my point. <evil grin>
Is this some kinda fandangled ki thang?
I wasn't wearing a ring in that example.
No. Because the ring wasn't even in the equation, as I wasn't wearing one.
Very true. Much like your "My finger provides cover to my ring" theory. You do realize, of course, that if I stuck my ring finger up my rear, my ring would have total cover, and technically, 100% concealment?
Well, right. See first answer.
Why not? I sure can.
EvilGM said:
I figured that. The whole "Sundering a ring?" thread title kinda tipped me off.
EvilGM said:
Specifically, we are talking about attacking a ring.
EvilGM said:
And I wear a leather skirt and ballet slippers on Sundays. Oh. Bad example, but you get my point. <evil grin>
EvilGM said:
Is this some kinda fandangled ki thang?
EvilGM said:
I wasn't wearing a ring in that example.
EvilGM said:
No. Because the ring wasn't even in the equation, as I wasn't wearing one.
EvilGM said:
Very true. Much like your "My finger provides cover to my ring" theory. You do realize, of course, that if I stuck my ring finger up my rear, my ring would have total cover, and technically, 100% concealment?
EvilGM said:
Well, right. See first answer.
EvilGM said:
Why not? I sure can.
Last edited:
yes, you are confused
In this example...
Now if you decide to flip your adversary off, you're giving up some cover on the ring and making it much easier to hit.
I was not referring to your example, but mine - the one with the ring. I will try to be more clear when citing examples. I ignored your example, as it was not about attacking objects.
Is this some kinda fandangled ki thang?
No. All I'm asking is that you put yourself in the ring's place and see what defenses you have.
Are you trying to tell me that the ring would have no cover? I do not see how this can be, as there is a physical barrier obstructing it. The amount of cover is, of course, at the DM's discretion. You may rule as you wish. Maybe you consider (assuming a normal humanoid bearer) a rather small amount of flesh and bone to be insufficient to grant effective cover. That's entirely up to you. There is, however, no denying that the ring would be partially obstructed and not all of it open to attack.
You do realize, of course, that if I stuck my ring finger up my rear, my ring would have total cover, and technically, 100% concealment?
Admittedly so. This is a rather embarassing position to adventure in though. Pray it is not a loose ring and get's lost.
I think I would give the ring intelligence and ranks of escape artist before I gave one to you.
ps - Please email answer C to argamath@yahoo.com
In this example...
Now if you decide to flip your adversary off, you're giving up some cover on the ring and making it much easier to hit.
I was not referring to your example, but mine - the one with the ring. I will try to be more clear when citing examples. I ignored your example, as it was not about attacking objects.
Is this some kinda fandangled ki thang?
No. All I'm asking is that you put yourself in the ring's place and see what defenses you have.
Are you trying to tell me that the ring would have no cover? I do not see how this can be, as there is a physical barrier obstructing it. The amount of cover is, of course, at the DM's discretion. You may rule as you wish. Maybe you consider (assuming a normal humanoid bearer) a rather small amount of flesh and bone to be insufficient to grant effective cover. That's entirely up to you. There is, however, no denying that the ring would be partially obstructed and not all of it open to attack.
You do realize, of course, that if I stuck my ring finger up my rear, my ring would have total cover, and technically, 100% concealment?
Admittedly so. This is a rather embarassing position to adventure in though. Pray it is not a loose ring and get's lost.
I think I would give the ring intelligence and ranks of escape artist before I gave one to you.
ps - Please email answer C to argamath@yahoo.com
Without trying to say whether you "should" or "shouldn't" allow it IYC...
If one of my players was to say can I...?
I would apply the target's normal AC +8 (for the ring being diminutive), & give the ring 50% concealment instead of cover.
Why concealment? Well, unless you're an adamantium golem, I doubt your finger is "hard" enough to be relatively impenetrable to most weapons, you're only ever likely able to see part of the ring at any one time, & as hugely tricky shot to pull off I'd expect there to be a significant chance you could miss entirely.
Lastly, I'd say any damage "left over" from destroying the ring would be passed on to the ring's wearer (another reason to make the wearer's AC the base). You may not sever the wearer's finger, but odds are you'd gash it pretty good & make it sting a lot.
If one of my players was to say can I...?
I would apply the target's normal AC +8 (for the ring being diminutive), & give the ring 50% concealment instead of cover.
Why concealment? Well, unless you're an adamantium golem, I doubt your finger is "hard" enough to be relatively impenetrable to most weapons, you're only ever likely able to see part of the ring at any one time, & as hugely tricky shot to pull off I'd expect there to be a significant chance you could miss entirely.
Lastly, I'd say any damage "left over" from destroying the ring would be passed on to the ring's wearer (another reason to make the wearer's AC the base). You may not sever the wearer's finger, but odds are you'd gash it pretty good & make it sting a lot.
Similar Threads
