Hi all, for today's question I was looking for feedback on how to implement sunder rules from older editions. The basic idea is that I want my players to be able to attack the held weapons and shields of their opponents.
Now in 3.5e, sunders were a pain. A character would designate an object, provoke an attack of opportunity, then have to make an attack roll opposed by an attack roll of the wielder (for a weapon), or against an AC specific to the object (for armor, shields, and other stuff). Then, if the character hits, each object has a number of hit points and hardness, which acts as a soak value. Magic objects are even more complicated.
Some of you will probably want to argue that the added complication doesn't warrant a house rule. I disagree. Fantasy combat is littered with examples of sundering which make encounters more interesting. Sauron shattered Narsil denying Isildur a weapon (or so he thought), Luke Skywalker sliced through Boba Fett's blaster rifle with his lightsaber, and basically every video game boss fight ever requires you to break through your enemy's armor and shields to hit that glowing red spot.
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage. I would limit sunders to held non-magical items, and port the pathfinder rule for broken objects. Basically, a broken weapon/piece of armor can't be used, and requires down time+some ability check/some expenditure of gold to fix. The only free variable there is how to adjudicate damage rolls against objects.
I'm aware of the rules for objects, but I'm really trying to avoid the complication of having to treat held obbjects like unattended objects with independent stats.
There is already a mechanic in the fighter's battle master subclass:
Disarming Attack When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet
That said, it's a special ability of a subclass and it would feel unfair to let just anyone do that as a free action. I don't know anything about 3.5e, but I know that 5e likes to streamline and simplify things. I want to say to just make disarming someone an action, like shove, with some contested check (maybe an athletics or slight of hand check against the enemy's AC? Or if you want something more difficult, maybe once getting past the enemy's AC you have to make a contested athletics check in addition? Or maybe you have to make the check two turns in a row?) but it sounds like your version of "disarm" is intended to make the enemy's weapon unusable by breaking it? I don't really know how you can track how broken a weapon is without tracking HP of some sort.
The question is whether you want it to be a regular feature in your games or if you want it to be a cinematic event. I have had crits break shields and weapons. "You swing your battleaxe overhead bringing it down with so much force it shatters the warrior's shield and bites into his shoulder."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Hi all, for today's question I was looking for feedback on how to implement sunder rules from older editions. The basic idea is that I want my players to be able to attack the held weapons and shields of their opponents.
-SNIP-
What are your thoughts?
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
That said, there's some good roleplay to be had in maintaining equipment. It gives spells like mending some additional utility, and if your group likes immersing themselves in the equipment of their characters, then having rules around actually maintaining their weapons and equipment is a good way of doing it. I've played a character before that wasn't particularly powerful in the stats department, but made sure his equipment was always carefully looked after; it was a really good RP trait to have.
My advice when implementing it, is keep it as simple as you can:
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage.
That's the way I'd do it. House-rule that once per turn, as an action, you can make a strike against a particular piece of equipment - though I'd limit it to only equipment they're holding. Such as a weapon, shield or staff etc.
On a hit (which would be against the AC of the target), I'd roll to contest, with a DC of something like 15 (perhaps variable dependent on its material, but I wouldn't overcomplicate it). Give advantage if it makes sense (a two handed battle-axe against a quarterstaff for example), or disadvantage (a dagger against a shield). On a success, the item would be given the 'damaged' status, which imposes disadvantage on attack rolls for weapons, or decreases the AC of a shield to 1.
The player can then attempt to break a damaged item, by attacking it again on their next turn. A broken weapon acts as an improvised weapon. A broken shield cannot be used.
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
Sundering hasn't been removed. The rules for making an attack lets you target objects and the DMG/Basic Rules has rules for what happens when someone does.
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage.
I'm aware of the rules for objects, but I'm really trying to avoid the complication of having to treat held objects like unattended objects with independent stats.
You're already giving the item HP by tracking the damage the object takes. Might as well just go with the official rules for the item's AC as well. Using the enemy's AC doesn't make any sense to me. How well armored an enemy is doesn't have much to do with how hard it is to break their weapon.
If it bothers you that the rules treat held and unattended items the same, just give the attacker disadvantage on the attack. But trying to sunder is already a losing strategy in my opinion, so I don't think it needs a penalty. Every attack aimed at weapon or armor is an attack not aimed at the enemy. Combats generally don't last long enough that trying to break someone's armor is going to be more effective than just attacking them directly, and many creatures carry multiple weapons.
Magic items other than potions and scrolls already have resistance to all damage and mithral and adamantine have better AC than steel, so magic items usually don't need the extra protection.
The question is whether you want it to be a regular feature in your games or if you want it to be a cinematic event. I have had crits break shields and weapons. "You swing your battleaxe overhead bringing it down with so much force it shatters the warrior's shield and bites into his shoulder."
I'm actually kinda mad that I didn't think about this. It seems reasonable enough to standardize this sort of rule, allowing a player to forgo extra crit damage to break a weapon or shield.
Hi all, for today's question I was looking for feedback on how to implement sunder rules from older editions. The basic idea is that I want my players to be able to attack the held weapons and shields of their opponents.
-SNIP-
What are your thoughts?
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
That said, there's some good roleplay to be had in maintaining equipment. It gives spells like mending some additional utility, and if your group likes immersing themselves in the equipment of their characters, then having rules around actually maintaining their weapons and equipment is a good way of doing it. I've played a character before that wasn't particularly powerful in the stats department, but made sure his equipment was always carefully looked after; it was a really good RP trait to have.
My advice when implementing it, is keep it as simple as you can:
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage.
That's the way I'd do it. House-rule that once per turn, as an action, you can make a strike against a particular piece of equipment - though I'd limit it to only equipment they're holding. Such as a weapon, shield or staff etc.
On a hit (which would be against the AC of the target), I'd roll to contest, with a DC of something like 15 (perhaps variable dependent on its material, but I wouldn't overcomplicate it). Give advantage if it makes sense (a two handed battle-axe against a quarterstaff for example), or disadvantage (a dagger against a shield). On a success, the item would be given the 'damaged' status, which imposes disadvantage on attack rolls for weapons, or decreases the AC of a shield to 1.
The player can then attempt to break a damaged item, by attacking it again on their next turn. A broken weapon acts as an improvised weapon. A broken shield cannot be used.
I was also thinking about mending and the forge domain cleric. Maintaining equipment is already what I assume my players are doing.
Seems reasonable enough. I was also thinking that the damaged and broken conditions should act in that way. I don't see any real need to limit it to once per turn. Sunder attempts seem like they could be implemented as just another like grappling or shoving that can replace an attack.
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
Sundering hasn't been removed. The rules for making an attack lets you target objects and the DMG/Basic Rules has rules for what happens when someone does.
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage.
I'm aware of the rules for objects, but I'm really trying to avoid the complication of having to treat held objects like unattended objects with independent stats.
You're already giving the item HP by tracking the damage the object takes. Might as well just go with the official rules for the item's AC as well. Using the enemy's AC doesn't make any sense to me. How well armored an enemy is doesn't have much to do with how hard it is to break their weapon.
If it bothers you that the rules treat held and unattended items the same, just give the attacker disadvantage on the attack. But trying to sunder is already a losing strategy in my opinion, so I don't think it needs a penalty. Every attack aimed at weapon or armor is an attack not aimed at the enemy. Combats generally don't last long enough that trying to break someone's armor is going to be more effective than just attacking them directly, and many creatures carry multiple weapons.
Magic items other than potions and scrolls already have resistance to all damage and mithral and adamantine have better AC than steel, so magic items usually don't need the extra protection.
As you allude to, I was under the impression that the objects section was intended for unattended objects only, given that it seems to avoid any reference to any sort of weapon or piece of armor. I suggested using the AC of the opponent because I would suspect a more experienced combatant would be better able to avoid having their equipment damaged. If a dexterous rogue uses a dagger, it seems to me that the same dexterity which helps them avoid blows should help their dagger avoid being damaged. By the text:
An object's Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way).
which suggests to me that these ACs aren't appropriate for held objects, since object-holders certainly can dodge. I do agree with you about object HP. I forgot about the resistance of magic items.
I generally agree with you about the strategic bit, but the rules aren't meant to be based on optimal strategy, just to guide us on what to do based on player choices.
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
Sundering hasn't been removed. The rules for making an attack lets you target objects and the DMG/Basic Rules has rules for what happens when someone does.
Sunder has been removed as a specific action or mechanism to target weapons and armour currently been worn by a target to try and break them. The ability to attack objects exists, sure, but that's not the same as a specific action to do it, and requires (as this thread demonstrates) some interpretation for ruling in combat. As the OP points out, it's a massive faff and complication to track.
I sense that the intention in 5e was to dissuade sunder attempts, because it adds all sorts of complication, gives yet another thing to track, and can really slow down the game. The rules exist in-case you want to get it into your game, though. I reckon that's the reason spells like Shatter and Burning Hands can't affect items that are equipped.
Quote from "Heartofjuyomk2" »
I don't see any real need to limit it to once per turn. Sunder attempts seem like they could be implemented as just another like grappling or shoving that can replace an attack.
And that would be fine. It could just result in some balance issues if, particularly if the party goes in at the top of the initiative order, and runs in and destroys the weapons of all the enemies before they can even act. I'd have to playtest it out to get the balance.
As you allude to, I was under the impression that the objects section was intended for unattended objects only, given that it seems to avoid any reference to any sort of weapon or piece of armor. I suggested using the AC of the opponent because I would suspect a more experienced combatant would be better able to avoid having their equipment damaged. If a dexterous rogue uses a dagger, it seems to me that the same dexterity which helps them avoid blows should help their dagger avoid being damaged.
Sure, but that analogy breaks down when your AC involves armor; the entire reason you're hard to damage is that the armor's getting hit instead of you. If you really want to base sundering on the target's statistics, I'd personally go with a Dexterity saving throw instead of AC.
By the text:
An object's Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way).
which suggests to me that these ACs aren't appropriate for held objects, since object-holders certainly can dodge. I do agree with you about object HP. I forgot about the resistance of magic items.
I get that the text seems to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, those are definitely the rules the designers intended DMs to use against held or worn objects. That said, it would've been nice if the rules were explicit about that.
"TftYP Sunless Citadel p31: How would you suggest running Shatterspike's attacks vs weapons?"
(Shatterspike is a magic weapon that automatically scores critical hits against objects, and which the adventure says its wielder uses to break weapons in combat.)
"When the rules for making an attack or casting a spell talk about targeting an object, is it implied that it's an unattended object, or it possible to target someone's armor/shield directly with an attack in an attempt to damage/break it?"
"Is this balanced, in practice? When facing someone in Plate with a Shield (AC 21) mightn't it trivialize the fight to target and destroy their armor (AC19, 10hp)? Negating worn armor for the low cost of one weapon attack seems incredibly powerful."
...Nevertheless, those are definitely the rules the designers intended DMs to use against held or worn objects...
"When the rules for making an attack or casting a spell talk about targeting an object, is it implied that it's an unattended object, or it possible to target someone's armor/shield directly with an attack in an attempt to damage/break it?"
"Is this balanced, in practice? When facing someone in Plate with a Shield (AC 21) mightn't it trivialize the fight to target and destroy their armor (AC19, 10hp)? Negating worn armor for the low cost of one weapon attack seems incredibly powerful."
I'm not certain your arguments here make internal sense. The OP bemoans that sundering rules have been omitted, but you state that they haven't and sundering is covered intentionally by the object damage rules in the PHB and DMG; i.e.that you can target an object with an attack, that object can be held/worn, the AC of that object is per the material (steel = 19), and the hp is per the size/resilience. But then this Twitter conversation you quote seems to contradict that, with Jeremy implying that there is no foolproof way to target and wreck plate armor - that it is up to the DM somehow. To me, that means that there are no rules for sundering and we are back where we started, because rules for sundering would tell us without doubt what needs to be done to break a weapon or armor. If I were fighting something with 100hp and regular plate armor then the option to destroy that armor by doing 10 damage to AC19 could be very tempting.
Personally I think leaving all normal damage to held equipment out of the game is better, because the DM is not worried by monsters breaking their swords, while PCs loosing their plate armor on a regular basis is an annoying nightmare.
I think one reason they got rid of disarm and sunder (aside from a special Battle Master ability, but that's an edge case not a rule). Is because it's so fragging complex. Plus in 3rd if you wanted to do it and do it well you had to spend feats on it, then you had a hammer and every problem is a nail.
Why fight a lvl 15 Weapons Master, when his sword has lower HP? Because his magic sword is worth bank after wards. That's about it. Back in the day I ended a fight with a Weapons Master with a lvl 1 Command Spell. He dropped his weapon, we picked it up. He surrendered. I also remember a Spiked Chain wielding fighter in our party with Combat Reflexes that got retired because he was too broken.
Yes, there is a lot of fiction with that used, but all of those fictional pieces are focus of the story narrative devices, not the sort of thing they use all the time.
If you want all the algebra of 3rd back, and I don't, then the rules on Sunder never made any sense anyways. When you are attacking an held object or wore armor you're attacking something that is mobile, therefore it can take shock.
It's muuuuuch easier to break an object that can't move because almost all the force is transferred into the object. Especially if you have attack with a low surface area to increase the PSI. As for "attacking armor" how would you even attempt to adjudicate that? Armor isn't a single thing, would you -1 AC per successful attempt?
If you want all the algebra of 3rd back, and I don't, then the rules on Sunder never made any sense anyways.
I agree. Furthermore, it assumes that the only time weapons are hitting other weapons or shields, is when you're specifically trying to.
I always narrate that failing to overcome someone's AC isn't just swinging and missing, or the target ducking out of the way - especially for heavy armour wearing characters. It's failing to land a damaging blow, whether that's the target taking the blow on their shield, turning the attack with their own sword, or simply taking the force of the hit on their armour. Not sure why wearing plate would make it easier to avoid getting hit otherwise...
There actually is a disarm in the DMG, a section called something like otheractions in combat page 271. I think it functions like the battle master version but it takes your whole action.
There actually is a disarm in the DMG, a section called something like otheractions in combat page 271. I think it functions like the battle master version but it takes your whole action.
The last comment was 1.5 years ago. Please refrain from responding to aged threads, per our Site Rules & Guidelines.
Thank you.
/locking
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all, for today's question I was looking for feedback on how to implement sunder rules from older editions. The basic idea is that I want my players to be able to attack the held weapons and shields of their opponents.
Now in 3.5e, sunders were a pain. A character would designate an object, provoke an attack of opportunity, then have to make an attack roll opposed by an attack roll of the wielder (for a weapon), or against an AC specific to the object (for armor, shields, and other stuff). Then, if the character hits, each object has a number of hit points and hardness, which acts as a soak value. Magic objects are even more complicated.
Some of you will probably want to argue that the added complication doesn't warrant a house rule. I disagree. Fantasy combat is littered with examples of sundering which make encounters more interesting. Sauron shattered Narsil denying Isildur a weapon (or so he thought), Luke Skywalker sliced through Boba Fett's blaster rifle with his lightsaber, and basically every video game boss fight ever requires you to break through your enemy's armor and shields to hit that glowing red spot.
My thoughts about how to implement sunders would be to have an attack roll opposed by the AC of the opponent, but on a hit the item in question takes damage. I would limit sunders to held non-magical items, and port the pathfinder rule for broken objects. Basically, a broken weapon/piece of armor can't be used, and requires down time+some ability check/some expenditure of gold to fix. The only free variable there is how to adjudicate damage rolls against objects.
I'm aware of the rules for objects, but I'm really trying to avoid the complication of having to treat held obbjects like unattended objects with independent stats.
What are your thoughts?
There is already a mechanic in the fighter's battle master subclass:
That said, it's a special ability of a subclass and it would feel unfair to let just anyone do that as a free action. I don't know anything about 3.5e, but I know that 5e likes to streamline and simplify things. I want to say to just make disarming someone an action, like shove, with some contested check (maybe an athletics or slight of hand check against the enemy's AC? Or if you want something more difficult, maybe once getting past the enemy's AC you have to make a contested athletics check in addition? Or maybe you have to make the check two turns in a row?) but it sounds like your version of "disarm" is intended to make the enemy's weapon unusable by breaking it? I don't really know how you can track how broken a weapon is without tracking HP of some sort.
The question is whether you want it to be a regular feature in your games or if you want it to be a cinematic event. I have had crits break shields and weapons. "You swing your battleaxe overhead bringing it down with so much force it shatters the warrior's shield and bites into his shoulder."
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It's interesting - and I'm glad that you've identified that previous editions are a pain to implement. Ultimately, I think they removed it from 5e, because maintaining weapons isn't a lot of fun, and yet another thing to micromanage and keep track of.
That said, there's some good roleplay to be had in maintaining equipment. It gives spells like mending some additional utility, and if your group likes immersing themselves in the equipment of their characters, then having rules around actually maintaining their weapons and equipment is a good way of doing it. I've played a character before that wasn't particularly powerful in the stats department, but made sure his equipment was always carefully looked after; it was a really good RP trait to have.
My advice when implementing it, is keep it as simple as you can:
That's the way I'd do it. House-rule that once per turn, as an action, you can make a strike against a particular piece of equipment - though I'd limit it to only equipment they're holding. Such as a weapon, shield or staff etc.
On a hit (which would be against the AC of the target), I'd roll to contest, with a DC of something like 15 (perhaps variable dependent on its material, but I wouldn't overcomplicate it). Give advantage if it makes sense (a two handed battle-axe against a quarterstaff for example), or disadvantage (a dagger against a shield). On a success, the item would be given the 'damaged' status, which imposes disadvantage on attack rolls for weapons, or decreases the AC of a shield to 1.
The player can then attempt to break a damaged item, by attacking it again on their next turn. A broken weapon acts as an improvised weapon. A broken shield cannot be used.
Sundering hasn't been removed. The rules for making an attack lets you target objects and the DMG/Basic Rules has rules for what happens when someone does.
You're already giving the item HP by tracking the damage the object takes. Might as well just go with the official rules for the item's AC as well. Using the enemy's AC doesn't make any sense to me. How well armored an enemy is doesn't have much to do with how hard it is to break their weapon.
If it bothers you that the rules treat held and unattended items the same, just give the attacker disadvantage on the attack. But trying to sunder is already a losing strategy in my opinion, so I don't think it needs a penalty. Every attack aimed at weapon or armor is an attack not aimed at the enemy. Combats generally don't last long enough that trying to break someone's armor is going to be more effective than just attacking them directly, and many creatures carry multiple weapons.
Magic items other than potions and scrolls already have resistance to all damage and mithral and adamantine have better AC than steel, so magic items usually don't need the extra protection.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm actually kinda mad that I didn't think about this. It seems reasonable enough to standardize this sort of rule, allowing a player to forgo extra crit damage to break a weapon or shield.
I was also thinking about mending and the forge domain cleric. Maintaining equipment is already what I assume my players are doing.
Seems reasonable enough. I was also thinking that the damaged and broken conditions should act in that way. I don't see any real need to limit it to once per turn. Sunder attempts seem like they could be implemented as just another like grappling or shoving that can replace an attack.
As you allude to, I was under the impression that the objects section was intended for unattended objects only, given that it seems to avoid any reference to any sort of weapon or piece of armor. I suggested using the AC of the opponent because I would suspect a more experienced combatant would be better able to avoid having their equipment damaged. If a dexterous rogue uses a dagger, it seems to me that the same dexterity which helps them avoid blows should help their dagger avoid being damaged. By the text:
which suggests to me that these ACs aren't appropriate for held objects, since object-holders certainly can dodge. I do agree with you about object HP. I forgot about the resistance of magic items.
I generally agree with you about the strategic bit, but the rules aren't meant to be based on optimal strategy, just to guide us on what to do based on player choices.
Sure, but that analogy breaks down when your AC involves armor; the entire reason you're hard to damage is that the armor's getting hit instead of you. If you really want to base sundering on the target's statistics, I'd personally go with a Dexterity saving throw instead of AC.
I get that the text seems to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, those are definitely the rules the designers intended DMs to use against held or worn objects. That said, it would've been nice if the rules were explicit about that.
(Shatterspike is a magic weapon that automatically scores critical hits against objects, and which the adventure says its wielder uses to break weapons in combat.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm not certain your arguments here make internal sense. The OP bemoans that sundering rules have been omitted, but you state that they haven't and sundering is covered intentionally by the object damage rules in the PHB and DMG; i.e.that you can target an object with an attack, that object can be held/worn, the AC of that object is per the material (steel = 19), and the hp is per the size/resilience. But then this Twitter conversation you quote seems to contradict that, with Jeremy implying that there is no foolproof way to target and wreck plate armor - that it is up to the DM somehow. To me, that means that there are no rules for sundering and we are back where we started, because rules for sundering would tell us without doubt what needs to be done to break a weapon or armor. If I were fighting something with 100hp and regular plate armor then the option to destroy that armor by doing 10 damage to AC19 could be very tempting.
Personally I think leaving all normal damage to held equipment out of the game is better, because the DM is not worried by monsters breaking their swords, while PCs loosing their plate armor on a regular basis is an annoying nightmare.
I think one reason they got rid of disarm and sunder (aside from a special Battle Master ability, but that's an edge case not a rule).
Is because it's so fragging complex. Plus in 3rd if you wanted to do it and do it well you had to spend feats on it, then you had a hammer and every problem is a nail.
Why fight a lvl 15 Weapons Master, when his sword has lower HP? Because his magic sword is worth bank after wards. That's about it.
Back in the day I ended a fight with a Weapons Master with a lvl 1 Command Spell. He dropped his weapon, we picked it up. He surrendered.
I also remember a Spiked Chain wielding fighter in our party with Combat Reflexes that got retired because he was too broken.
Yes, there is a lot of fiction with that used, but all of those fictional pieces are focus of the story narrative devices, not the sort of thing they use all the time.
If you want all the algebra of 3rd back, and I don't, then the rules on Sunder never made any sense anyways.
When you are attacking an held object or wore armor you're attacking something that is mobile, therefore it can take shock.
It's muuuuuch easier to break an object that can't move because almost all the force is transferred into the object. Especially if you have attack with a low surface area to increase the PSI. As for "attacking armor" how would you even attempt to adjudicate that? Armor isn't a single thing, would you -1 AC per successful attempt?
I agree. Furthermore, it assumes that the only time weapons are hitting other weapons or shields, is when you're specifically trying to.
I always narrate that failing to overcome someone's AC isn't just swinging and missing, or the target ducking out of the way - especially for heavy armour wearing characters. It's failing to land a damaging blow, whether that's the target taking the blow on their shield, turning the attack with their own sword, or simply taking the force of the hit on their armour. Not sure why wearing plate would make it easier to avoid getting hit otherwise...
There actually is a disarm in the DMG, a section called something like other actions in combat page 271. I think it functions like the battle master version but it takes your whole action.
The last comment was 1.5 years ago. Please refrain from responding to aged threads, per our Site Rules & Guidelines.
Thank you.
/locking