If the armor we're talking about looks like that, I could maybe see cutting the leather straps so the armor falls off, with something like a dagger. Then again, I don't feel like most people care enough about sundering to make a house rule. Generally, players don't like sundering, because it decreases treasure. And as a DM, I feel like a jerk sundering someone's main weapon, or items, etc.
The reason for armor having hardness is not just for the difficulty of sundering it when it is not being worn. If a character rolls a natural 1 on their save against a spell or other damaging effect, their armor has a chance to be damaged as well. Yes, this is an often ignored rule (for one, it doesn't come up often, and it also has little impact other than more bookeeping), but it is there.
If the armor we're talking about looks like that, I could maybe see cutting the leather straps so the armor falls off, with something like a dagger. Then again, I don't feel like most people care enough about sundering to make a house rule. Generally, players don't like sundering, because it decreases treasure. And as a DM, I feel like a jerk sundering someone's main weapon, or items, etc.
But what about chain mail, or hide armor, or plenty of others? Do you want different sundering rules for different kinds of armor?
And I think anyone capable of cutting several of those strips with a dagger, is perfectly capable of putting that same dagger right through the eye.
If the armor we're talking about looks like that, I could maybe see cutting the leather straps so the armor falls off, with something like a dagger. Then again, I don't feel like most people care enough about sundering to make a house rule. Generally, players don't like sundering, because it decreases treasure. And as a DM, I feel like a jerk sundering someone's main weapon, or items, etc.
Rennaissance full plate tends to cover all sides. Defeating armor is about targeting the joints (under the armpit, ie., or in the neck, if there's there's not already a metal throat covering and many suits of armor had those, especially italian full plate). I suppose that the rationale for 'armor cannot be sundered' might have derived from that as well.
It isn't about severing that part of the armor that just makes it fall off - maybe that'd apply to poorly fitted armor or improvised armor that takes from other 'complete suits' (ie. just the cuirass, like in the above image; you'd find many uncovered areas in something like 'half plate').
Quote:
If the armor we're talking about looks like that, I could maybe see cutting the leather straps so the armor falls off, with something like a dagger. Then again, I don't feel like most people care enough about sundering to make a house rule. Generally, players don't like sundering, because it decreases treasure. And as a DM, I feel like a jerk sundering someone's main weapon, or items, etc.
The straps of that cuirass are protected by the metal-covered arms on the sides and the shoulder pauldrons would protect the above straps. Cutting the straps is almost impossible (swords are more proficient at cutting flesh then leather; that's why even cotton could be used as armor) - more easily achieved is just grabbing a big weapon to smash at the wearer or targeting the something vulnerable with a pointy and fast weapon (the shield was brought back to protect against pointy weapons; the introduction of the foot knight as a heavy way to combat pikes). With a weapon like a knife or an edged cutting sword versus a well armored opponent, it's nearly impossible.
The only chance a cutting dagger has to get at the straps of the armor is a grapple situation. Or the knight is completely surrounded and dead anyway (where a palm-driven ballock dagger can just puncture the chest of the cuirass or helmet anyway and kill with a lot more force behind it). And if the straps are cut, the cuirass doesn't just fall off right away (it can be improvised as a shield too).
Quote:
Shields tend to be unsupported except in the middle, which means that whichever part is hit has to resist the damage all by itself, whereas well-built armor is designed to spread the impact.
Shield rims were developed just for this purpose. Just like wheel rims, which are made for all around contact for the wheel. Even hoplites of the ancient world could use their bronze shield rims to cause plenty of pain. So the above statement is quite untrue, I believe.
Unless your referring to something like a buckler, which isn't a true shield. Bucklers are used for parrying, not blocking, and the wielder is always better off dodging and dancing than just standing there.
Quote:
One good hit and someone's AC can go down by 10. They wanted to prevent that. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but I'm guessing that's at least part of the reasoning. Another might be that a weapon is easier to replace than armor, should it get destroyed, and destroying a shield doesn't have the same impact.
If there was a feat to make breaking a shield do automatic damage to the user, because the shield breaks in their hand and the shrapnel flies into their face.... yeah.
Also, armor has more hp than weapons, so it's not always going to fall apart right away - the AC to hit armor on a sunder should be equal to that of the wearer, or at least half armor bonus; just saying, since the wearer is going to try to roll with the blows and reduce the impact of the weapon in whatever way possible, considering momentum of a weapon and resulting impact is largely what gets past armor to begin with.
If there's going to be sunder armor rules and repairing it is as expensive as crafting rules go, then armor should be more beneficial than just an AC bonus. My 2 cents.
If my post comes across as angry/ aggressive/ offensive/ whatever, it is not intended as such. At worst, it is merely incredulity, conveyed through the inflexible format of an internet forum.Don't flatter yourself thinking anything to the contrary.
Rules Q&A Armor and Weapon Hardness
