PDA

View Full Version : Sundering Armor (PEACH)



Annalia
2006-05-16, 10:40 PM
Everybody knows DnD isn't the most realistic role-playing game around. But I love it. Now, the thing that's been bothering me a lot is that you can't sunder or break an armor. NEVER. Armors in DnD are indestructible (sp?). I tried to fix that but I'm not sure at all how balanced these two feats are. So I'm asking to your most welcome and probably accurate comments. *;D

Armor Damaging
You are adept at damaging an enemy's armor.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Sunder, Str 15, BAB +5.
Benefit: If you use a bludgeoning weapon, you can try to damage your opponents armor. The armor must be light or medium.
If you use a piercing or slashing weapon, you can only damage light armors.
You must first hit the opponent's armor with a melee touch attack. The bonus to hit granted by Improved Sunder to an attack roll can be applied to the melee touch attack. An armor that has been hit is damaged. Its max Dexterity is reduced by 1, its Armor Check Penalty is increased by 1 and its Arcane Chance Failure is augmented by 5%.
Normal: You cannot damage or sunder an opponent's armor.
Special: A fighter can select Armor Damaging as a fighter bonus feat.

Improved Armor Damaging
You have become very skilled at damaging an opponent's armor.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Sunder, Armor Damaging, Str 15, BAB +8.
Benefit: When using a bludgeoning weapon, you can try to damage all types of armor. When using a slashing or piercing weapon, you can try to damage a light or medium armor.
You must first hit the opponent's armor with a melee touch attack. The bonus to hit granted by Improved Sunder to an attack roll can be applied to the melee touch attack. An armor that has been hit is damaged. Its max Dexterity is reduced by 2, its Armor Check Penalty is increased by 2 and its Arcane Chance Failure is augmented by 10%. These effects doesn't stack with those granted by the Armor Damaging feat.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as a fighter bonus feat.

So, how are they? Oh, and, if you have better name for them, I take suggestions. *:D

The_Snark
2006-05-16, 10:53 PM
I'd suggest that Improved Armor Damaging reduce the AC bonus by 1 also. Maybe remove one of the other doubled bonuses if it seems unbalanced

Also, the Armor Check Penalty should be increased, not decreased.

Annalia
2006-05-16, 10:57 PM
Well, going from -1 to -2 is technically a decreasment. But I see your point. *;)

I'll hold to the idea of the AC reduction until I get more comments. I'm also worried about the balance for such a bonuses.

Also, it doesn't stack.

idksocrates
2006-05-16, 11:15 PM
I think you will need to decrease the AC with a hit, or no one would take it (except for DM run npc who like to make life difficult for players).

Think about it: how does damaging armor (as is presently stated) help a PC? It has no immediate combat effect, and makes any armor that you destroy on an opponent less valuable to hawk later.

Annalia
2006-05-17, 08:20 AM
Well, people often pick an armor to fit their Dex bonus. What I mean is that someone with a +4 dex would want to pick up a chainshirt (max +4). Cutting the max dex bonus often cuts the armor.

Let's see... if it were like this:

Armor Damaging
You are adept at damaging an enemy's armor.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Sunder, Str 15, BAB +5.
Benefit: If you use a bludgeoning weapon, you can try to damage your opponents armor. The armor must be light or medium.
If you use a piercing or slashing weapon, you can only damage light armors.
You must first hit the opponent's armor with a melee touch attack. The bonus to hit granted by Improved Sunder to an attack roll can be applied to the melee touch attack. An armor that has been hit is damaged. Its max Dexterity is reduced by 1, its Armor Check Penalty is increased by 1 and its Arcane Chance Failure is augmented by 5%. Furthermore, if you hit the opponent's touch AC by 5 or more, you reduce the AC bonus by 1.
Normal: You cannot damage or sunder an opponent's armor.
Special: A fighter can select Armor Damaging as a fighter bonus feat.

Improved Armor Damaging
You have become very skilled at damaging an opponent's armor.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Sunder, Armor Damaging, Str 15, BAB +8.
Benefit: When using a bludgeoning weapon, you can try to damage all types of armor. When using a slashing or piercing weapon, you can try to damage a light or medium armor.
You must first hit the opponent's armor with a melee touch attack. The bonus to hit granted by Improved Sunder to an attack roll can be applied to the melee touch attack. An armor that has been hit is damaged. Its max Dexterity is reduced by 2, its Armor Check Penalty is increased by 2 and its Arcane Chance Failure is augmented by 10%. Furthermore, if you hit the opponent's touch AC by 5 or more, you reduce the AC bonus by 1. These effects don't stack with those granted by the Armor Damaging feat.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as a fighter bonus feat.

Dalcassius
2006-05-17, 08:40 AM
It should be at full round action and an standard attack, not a touch attack. A touch attack is easier, because you are simply attempting to make the slightest contact, not hit hard enough to injury. In this case you are infact attempting to injure, just the tartget is different.
I'm also curious if having half of the damage dealt to the armour transfter to the wearer would make this to powerful a feat.
Also, I agree with IDKS on this about the AC being penalized with the amour taking damage.

I'm picturing the feats as such.
Armour Damage reducing the AC bonus by 1 and Spell Failure % increases 5%. The Max Dex decrease by 1 and the Armour Check Penalty worsens by 1.
Imp. Armour Damage reduces the AC bonus by 2, the Spell Failure increases by 10%. The Max Dex decreases by 1 and the Armour Check Penalty worsens by 1.
The feats stack.

Democratus
2006-05-17, 08:42 AM
How the heck can a bludgenoning weapon hurt chain, padded, or leather armor? *Doesn't make sense.

InaVegt
2006-05-17, 08:44 AM
For chain it can damage the links, i don't know about the others though

Malachite
2006-05-17, 08:50 AM
I'd say change the weapon differentiation from S/P vs B to size - a greatsword could do some serious damage to even full-plate, but a light mace or sap would just glance off it. Other than that this looks good - why should Bebiliths get all the derobing fun? ;)

Peregrine
2006-05-17, 09:26 AM
Yeah, the damage types required probably need either more attention, or less. Picks should have a shot at getting through almost any armour. Clubs would have a hard time damaging padded armour. Not to mention that big swords can still bludgeon what they can't cut. So I think you should either be more detailed, or just scrap the idea of differentiating damage types as too finicky.

Annalia
2006-05-17, 05:20 PM
It should be at full round action and an standard attack, not a touch attack. A touch attack is easier, because you are simply attempting to make the slightest contact, not hit hard enough to injury. In this case you are infact attempting to injure, just the tartget is different.
I'm also curious if having half of the damage dealt to the armour transfter to the wearer would make this to powerful a feat.
Also, I agree with IDKS on this about the AC being penalized with the amour taking damage.


I really need this to use the Touch AC of the opponent. If you're trying to hit the armor, it doesn't make sense that the opponent gets his armor bonus to AC. I'll make this a full-round action that uses the Touch AC.

As for size, I could change S and P to Light Weapons and B to One-handed and higher. There's still some weapons that doesn't make much sense but I think it's a definite improvement on the realism side.

I've already added damage to the AC bonus. I still don't know whether or not the feats should stack.

Goumindong
2006-05-17, 05:53 PM
I say you should remove the damage type limitation and justify it in a different way.

"you are adept at hitting armor to make it unwieldly or fall off"

So if you attack full plate with a slashing weapon, you hit the straps, when the straps fail the armor doesnt fit as well and looses AC and max dex bonus.

For the basic feat, i like the -1 AC, -1 max dex, -1 armor check, +5% arcane failure, stacking. With a cap of +0 AC and +0 Max Dex. (so you cant diable somone by hitting their max dex to -5)

And doubled for the next.

I dont think it should permanently damage the armor though, only make it needing minor (non-magical for such armors) repairs.

oh, and it should be a standard action or standard attack. "As a standard action you can make an attack", or similar to the current sunder/trip attacks.

idksocrates
2006-05-17, 09:50 PM
I say you should remove the damage type limitation and justify it in a different way.

"you are adept at hitting armor to make it unwieldly or fall off"

So if you attack full plate with a slashing weapon, you hit the straps, when the straps fail the armor doesnt fit as well and looses AC and max dex bonus.

For the basic feat, i like the -1 AC, -1 max dex, -1 armor check, +5% arcane failure, stacking. With a cap of +0 AC and +0 Max Dex. (so you cant diable somone by hitting their max dex to -5)

And doubled for the next.

I dont think it should permanently damage the armor though, only make it needing minor (non-magical for such armors) repairs.

oh, and it should be a standard action or standard attack. "As a standard action you can make an attack", or similar to the current sunder/trip attacks.

This stuff sounds good.

Now, the thing about hitting actual AC is, when your trying to strike the opponent to do damage, you have to hit specific parts fo the armor (soft spots) to hit the opponent effectively. Touch assumes that it doesn't matter where you hit.
The same principle applies here: you aren't trying to hit anywhere on the armor, your trying to hit very specific spots, with very specific angles in mind to damage the armor. Full AC should be used.