Hi,
the Advanced Armor Training option "Armored Sacrifice" states:
..."The original target takes no damage, but the armor or shield is treated as if it had only half its normal hardness."...
Assuming steel plate mail, the original hardness is 10.
1) After first use: hardness 5
2) After second use: hardness 2
3) After third use: hardness 1
4) After forth use: hardness 0
Is that correct?
Can the armor be repaired in states 1) to 3)? What would be the repair costs?
Is the armor beyond repair when the hardness hits 0, as it just falls apart?
Thanks and BR.
No, hardness isn't actually reduced, the armor still has hardness 10 (before it becomes magic armor and that gets changed by enhancement bonus or impervious), but for resolving this particular damage instance, you only reduce the incoming damage by half the hardness.
So if you block a 25 damage hit, that would deal 25-(10-5)=20 damage to the armor.
Normally, you can repair any item that is not broken (half hitpoints or less) with an appropriate craft skill for free, and when it is broken, it costs 1/5th the mundane cost and half the magical cost (magical repair time is half crafting time so I assume it would likewise be 1/5th crafting time for mundane objects if there isn't a magical crafting time) by mundane means. However, any cleric of sufficient level (CL of caster=CL of item) can also simply cast mend/(greater) make whole until the item is restored for free (casting service costs not included).
Note that if you are a fighter taking that particular AAT, you likely want to also take the Master Armorer AAT as well so you can make such necessary repairs to your armor. Likewise, you will probably want to get your armor made impervious to offset that halving of your armor's hardness (and give it a bunch more HP).
|
Repairing mundane items has a cost:
Repairing Items: You can use the appropriate Craft skill to repair items of that type. Repairing an item with the broken condition or that has taken damage (or both) requires tools and a work area, and you must pay 1/10 the item’s cost in raw materials. Repairing an item has the same DC as crafting the item, but takes an amount of time based on the item’s complexity. Extremely simple items take an hour to repair. Simple and normal items take 1d4 hours to repair. Complex and intricate items take a day to repair, and all other items take 1d4 days to repair.
Mending can do it for free if the item weight is low, your CL is high enough and you have all the pieces.
also note that mending has a casting time of 10 minutes.
a lot of players miss that.
(still faster then normal crafting rules by all means)
Repairing mundane items has a cost:
Repairing Items: You can use the appropriate Craft skill to repair items of that type. Repairing an item with the broken condition or that has taken damage (or both) requires tools and a work area, and you must pay 1/10 the item’s cost in raw materials. Repairing an item has the same DC as crafting the item, but takes an amount of time based on the item’s complexity. Extremely simple items take an hour to repair. Simple and normal items take 1d4 hours to repair. Complex and intricate items take a day to repair, and all other items take 1d4 days to repair.Mending can do it for free if the item weight is low, your CL is high enough and you have all the pieces.
This is the alternate crafting rules, technically speaking (ironically, here AoNprd is less clear than D20PFSRD). That said, I would recommend alt crafting rules here as it clearly states you only pay when its broken, and it halves the cost over the original rules.
That said, assuming you are going with mundane means of repair for some reason, the magical repair time will always be longer than the mundane repair time for a magical item like armor, so you go with that.
... Likewise, you will probably want to get your armor made impervious ...
OK thanks, it seems that I've completely misunderstood how this option works! :-)
I still don't understand though, how this all interacts with the "break DC" mentioned in the impervious armor quality.
BR.
|
|
Repairing mundane items has a cost:
Repairing Items: You can use the appropriate Craft skill to repair items of that type. Repairing an item with the broken condition or that has taken damage (or both) requires tools and a work area, and you must pay 1/10 the item’s cost in raw materials. Repairing an item has the same DC as crafting the item, but takes an amount of time based on the item’s complexity. Extremely simple items take an hour to repair. Simple and normal items take 1d4 hours to repair. Complex and intricate items take a day to repair, and all other items take 1d4 days to repair.Mending can do it for free if the item weight is low, your CL is high enough and you have all the pieces.This is the alternate crafting rules, technically speaking (ironically, here AoNprd is less clear than D20PFSRD). That said, I would recommend alt crafting rules here as it clearly states you only pay when its broken, and it halves the cost over the original rules.
That said, assuming you are going with mundane means of repair for some reason, the magical repair time will always be longer than the mundane repair time for a magical item like armor, so you go with that.
True, those are the rules in Unchained, p. 73. They say: "Repairing an item with the broken condition or that has taken damage (or both)", so repairing any damage has a cost.
Repair Items: You can repair an item by making checks against the same DC that it took to make the item in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth of the item’s price.
In the CRB it costs more.
Ah misread that it was only when it was at least broken. Personally, still think it's dumb to take the same gold or even any gold to buff out a small dent as it is to replace half the straps and several wrent plates.
... Likewise, you will probably want to get your armor made impervious ...OK thanks, it seems that I've completely misunderstood how this option works! :-)
I still don't understand though, how this all interacts with the "break DC" mentioned in the impervious armor quality.
BR.
You only do damage against hardness and HP if you are trying to break something with multiple blows or hits. If you want to try and literally break something in one go (e.g. Koolaid man through a wall instead of mining through it with a pickaxe), you use a break DC, but the game failed to ever make these for anything besides walls, doors, and chests. In theory, if say a dinosaur were to stop on your unattended armor, you would roll the dinosaur's strength vs some nebulous DC, but because your armor +5 and impervious, the DC is now +5 higher.
Essentially just ignore that unless you really want to make your own table by armor types.
|
|
Ah misread that it was only when it was at least broken. Personally, still think it's dumb to take the same gold or even any gold to buff out a small dent as it is to replace half the straps and several wrent plates.
I don't think that even 1 point of damage is a "small nick", but I agree that having to repair 1 strap or repairing a broken and almost destroyed armor costing the same is an oversimplification.
Like a lot of rules, simplification clashes with verisimilitude. A GM can houserule that without problems.
i usually go with dividing the item's total hp by 10 and the same for the base price. seeing how much damage it was dealt, then heaving that part fixed.
as for a broken condition i consider it as taking damage equal to 50% of the original whole item total, since in the damaging objects rules it say:
"Hit Points: An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined."
so i figured if taking 50% damage make it broken then making it broken mean it took 50% damage of it's total hp
also for the mending spell you can tell how much it fix and when the broken is not broken anymore:
"This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points."
and yes. if an item has 100 hp and was damaged 49 hp (after hardness etc etc). and then an effect would give it the broken condition. i would say that effect deal 50 more damage to the item, leaving it broken at 1/100 hp and in an almost destroyed condition.
side note, since mending also say:
"Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. "
it seem that non magical items which are destroyed, say arrows that hit the mark, and that every last bit of the object is retrieved - can be fixed.
just call it "rise object" ;)
How would you deal with something like a caryatid column where if your weapon takes any damage over hardness, it simply has the broken condition regardless of actual HP.
as i said, any effect that make the item broken actually give damage that is equal to 50% of it's max hp. (alongside the broken condition)
so if the max hp is 100 getting broken deal 50 damage. and if it was already over 50% hp, as in broken before, any broken effect that is then given to it make it at or over 100% hp and it is destroyed.
this feat actually support this idea. it talk about how a broken item (armor spikes) that get broken once more is destroyed.
in the specific case you mentioned the creature ability of 'Caryatid Column' say:
"Shatter Weapons (Ex) Whenever a character strikes a caryatid column with a weapon (magical or nonmagical), the weapon takes 3d6 points of damage. Apply the weapon’s hardness normally. Weapons that take any amount of damage in excess of their hardness gain the broken quality."
seem to me this is actually meant to break weapons with ease.
so any weapon that the 3d6 damage pass it's hardness is broken (at 50%) damage. in this case i would take the higher. if the damage after hardness is less then 50% of the total item's hp it take 50% -and is broken.
if the damage dealt is higher it would take the higher amount
-and again would be broken if not outright destroyed if it has very little hp. say an arrow. even a durable one that should last a hit.
i think the main idea here that one shutter effect that pass hardness break the weapon and a 2nd one destroy it. (it's named 'Shatter weapons' for a reason)
@zza ni
Slight correction, I believe any effect that grants a weapon the broken condition would deal 50% of its max HP, +1 dmg.
If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1.
That's also how the misfire Broken condition is treated (according to a designer post), and presumably how Fortified Armor Training works.
Also simple firearm misfire and quick clear (which removes the broken condition), is a clear example of gaining the broken condition with no actual damage applied.
Fragile weapons cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead. Masterwork and magical fragile weapons lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description.
If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1. This damage is repaired either by something that addresses the effect that granted the weapon the broken condition (like quick clear in the case of firearm misfires or the Field Repair feat) or by the repair methods described in the broken condition. When an effect that grants the broken condition is removed, the weapon regains the hit points it lost when the broken condition was applied. Damage done by an attack against a weapon (such as from a sunder combat maneuver) cannot be repaired by an effect that removes the broken condition.
A firearm misfire is brought up as an example of an effect that deals damage to the item when the broken condition is applied.
Looking at the PRD I can see that the second paragraph is actually deliberately split from the description of the Fragile special weapon feature. So I'd assume that this is the general rule for all abilities that inflict the broken condition.
|
|
If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1. This damage is repaired either by something that addresses the effect that granted the weapon the broken condition (like quick clear in the case of firearm misfires or the Field Repair feat from Ultimate Combat) or by the repair methods described in the broken condition (Core Rulebook 566). When an effect that grants the broken condition is removed, the weapon regains the hit points it lost when the broken condition was applied. Damage done by an attack against a weapon (such as from a sunder combat maneuver) cannot be repaired by an effect that removes the broken condition.
No breaks in the paragraph, and it starts with "If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way", so if the weapon gets the broken condition another way, it doesn't apply.
This way is:
A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon.
I just posted this in a different thread, but there's also this ability, the Babau's Protective Slime-
Protective Slime (Su): A layer of acidic slime coats a babau’s skin. Any creature that strikes a babau with a natural attack or unarmed strike takes 1d8 points of acid damage from this slime if it fails a DC 18 Reflex save. A creature that strikes a babau with a melee weapon must make a DC 18 Reflex save or the weapon takes 1d8 points of acid damage; if this damage penetrates the weapon’s hardness, the weapon gains the broken condition. Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage.
So if the slime does 1 point of acid damage to your sword, it's broken!
as i posted. this is the way i rule in my games. never said it was raw.
anytime (even with misfire guns etc) a broken condition is applied to a weapon (without naming specific amount of damage) I consider that as 50% of it's total hp is done in damage to the item.
so if it had over 50% damage already, getting the broken condition will destroy the item (and before being at 50% or more damage it's broken, via the breaking items rules i linked).
And every time the broken condition is removed (if not by fixing x damage) then i consider the same amount to be fixed of the item's total hp. (50%, not +1 since if it was destroyed and 50% was cleared it's still at 50% which is still broken. 'broken'x2='destroyed' so 'destroyed'-'broken'x1 should be = 'broken'x1)
the point is there are rules that say "when '50% damage' -> 'broken' ". But no clear saying that "if 'broken' then item take 50% total damage" (beside as pointed in specific cases).
but from all the examples above i decided to set it that way, for simplicity and consistency if nothing else.
let me put it this way - if the 'broken' condition can be applied without a numerical number of damage (as
willuwontu pointed out ,say with the oracle curse etc), how then would you be able to fix it with things like a mending spell?
-that one fix numerical damage and once enough is done the item is fixed after all.
("This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points.")
I would argue that if 1 point of damage from an ability imposes the broken condition on my weapon, then repairing that point of damage would remove it. If the ability was intended to do more damage, it would have specifically stated it did so. In other words, the rule the ability is breaking is "damage equal to 50% of hit points imposes the broken condition".
zza ni, I'm not saying your ruling is unreasonable, but it's adding more text to the ability to make it work, where there is a simpler (if a little more mind-bending) possibility.
Alas, we'll never know which of us is right, but I guess that's a good thing. Since Paizo has abandoned their game, each of us is right about the games we run, and we're allowed to make rulings that are appropriate for the style of games we run. ^-^
No breaks in the paragraph, and it starts with "If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way", so if the weapon gets the broken condition another way, it doesn't apply.
Compare the SRD and the PRD. You will see that the SRD has mushed the two paragraphs into a single one, whereas the PRD has them split. And the second paragraph is also aligned further to the left than all the feature descriptions, to set it aside from those definitions. As if it was its own rule. That's what I was referring to.
And, well, did you read the part where it calls out firearm misfires?
"If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1. This damage is repaired either by something that addresses the effect that granted the weapon the broken condition (1) (like quick clear in the case of firearm misfires or the Field Repair feat from Ultimate Combat) (2) or by the repair methods described in the broken condition (Core Rulebook 566). When an effect that grants the broken condition is removed, the weapon regains the hit points it lost when the broken condition was applied. "
1. The paragraph explicitly makes a general case for effects that inflict the broken condition, rather than just the Fragile feature. It is very clear that it is a general rule and not specific to the Fragile feature.
2. Firearm misfires is such a case. A misfire has nothing to do with the Fragile feature but is called out in this paragraph. So we know for sure that a firearm that misfires takes damage as spelled out earlier, and that Quick Clear makes your firearm regain its hit points.
With these facts you can draw the conclusion that the first sentence refers not the Fragile feature, but to any effect that inflicts the broken condition without explicitly dealing damage.
|
|
No breaks in the paragraph, and it starts with "If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way", so if the weapon gets the broken condition another way, it doesn't apply.Compare the SRD and the PRD. You will see that the SRD has mushed the two paragraphs into a single one, whereas the PRD has them split. And the second paragraph is also aligned further to the left than all the feature descriptions, to set it aside from those definitions. As if it was its own rule. That's what I was referring to.
I compared the book. The original text PDF, to be precise.
Yes, I read the part where it makes examples that clash with "If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way". And I decided that the text of the rule matters more than an example.
|
|
let me put it this way - if the 'broken' condition can be applied without a numerical number of damage (as
willuwontu pointed out ,say with the oracle curse etc), how then would you be able to fix it with things like a mending spell?-that one fix numerical damage and once enough is done the item is fixed after all.
("This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points.")
You can't repair the items affected by the oracle curse. While the oracle uses or equips the item it has the broken status, but they "regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else", so the actual condition is to be at full health.
let me put it this way - if the 'broken' condition can be applied without a numerical number of damage (as
willuwontu pointed out ,say with the oracle curse etc), how then would you be able to fix it with things like a mending spell?-that one fix numerical damage and once enough is done the item is fixed after all.
("This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points.")You can't repair the items affected by the oracle curse. While the oracle uses or equips the item it has the broken status, but they "regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else", so the actual condition is to be at full health.
umm actually the line right after that one talk about repairing the item (say 'held' so while in the oracle hands)
"Held objects gain the broken condition when you use or equip them but regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else. If a held item is restored to unbroken condition, it becomes broken again the following round"if you are going to quote, make sure to read it all...
so yea. it can be repaired.
I compared the book. The original text PDF, to be precise.
I checked my physical copy just now. The paragraphs are definitely split (although the alignment for obvious reasons doesn't exist in book format). Which sets it apart from any other weapon feature description.
Yes, I read the part where it makes examples that clash with "If a weapon gains the broken condition in this way". And I decided that the text of the rule matters more than an example.
Uh-huh. The "text of the rule". Did you mean the part where it clearly makes a general case by using a general term, or when it brought up an example that has nothing to do with the Fragile feature so that we can infer that's also how it works for other such effects?
Here we have actual rules that details exactly what happens to an item's HP while under the effect of something that applies the broken condition. Even if it didn't make a general case we would still extrapolate this information to apply in similar situations because that's how induction works.
Please don't continue arguing unless you can provide an argument for your own position. Refuting that the paragraph creates a general rule does not prove your position. I'm not going to bicker about details if you haven't even reached the starting line.
|
|
let me put it this way - if the 'broken' condition can be applied without a numerical number of damage (as
willuwontu pointed out ,say with the oracle curse etc), how then would you be able to fix it with things like a mending spell?-that one fix numerical damage and once enough is done the item is fixed after all.
("This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points.")You can't repair the items affected by the oracle curse. While the oracle uses or equips the item it has the broken status, but they "regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else", so the actual condition is to be at full health.
umm actually the line right after that one talk about repairing the item (say 'held' so while in the oracle hands)
"Held objects gain the broken condition when you use or equip them but regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else. If a held item is restored to unbroken condition, it becomes broken again the following round"if you are going to quote, make sure to read it all...
so yea. it can be repaired.
And? It says "regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else" or not? So what is their actual condition?
Your quote doesn't disprove anything. It shows that the item is broken while in the hands of the oracle, and becomes broken again if it stays in his hands.But the whole text proves that the actual condition of the item is what it has without the oracle curse.
That, BTW, gives the broken condition, it doesn't increase a broken condition to destroyed. So your house rule of "giving the broken condition adds 50% of the item hitpoints as damage" has some problem.
I made the word 'held' tilted to point it out.
" If a held item is restored to unbroken condition.."
Now who is holding it when its broken?
The guy that break things he hold or others that fix it when emoloying it?
Again try to read what i talk about.the item can be fixed even when the cursed oracle break it.
If the item was broken before it doesnt breack any more in this case. For two reasons. It seem like a power to haress the character but having the armor she wore a day before get destroyed the 2nd time she wear it is too extreme to be ruled without saying so specificly.
In this case since items get fixed by others it seem this specific rule is to make sure every item the oracle uses is at least broken. As a minimum effect. As such no need for stacking.
But if a diffrent effect would break the item in a wracker hands. Then yes i would totallly rule that it is destroyed.