Armor is Armor is Armor right? Meaning armor granted from a Wizard’s Arcane Ward move can still be surpassed by Piercing and Ignore Armor moves. Regardless of the source (suit of armor, magic spell) do you guys treat Armor all the same?
Armor is Armor is Armor right?
Armor is Armor is Armor right?
Whoa hell no, not all armor is the same. That doesn’t even make sense. Fiction first.
What is the armor? How does that armor work? What’s it good for? These are the important details.
That was my initial thought too. Saw some other discussion going the other way. Thought to reach out and see what you guys had to say.
Yes, mechanically, I treat all armor the same, and Piercing attacks work equally well whether the armor is magical or not.
I agree with Alfred. But maybe with a bit less enthusiasm 🙂
I imagine magic armor as a deflective force, something that moves incoming attacks just enough to the side that they graze or miss altogether.
Given that idea, my magic armor would do almost nothing against falling damage. So piercing doesn’t get through any more than slashing or whatever, but falling does.
Just another example: If your player describes their armor as a repulsion effect, that’s cool. It might be able to hold back almost all armor ignoring effects but oh, the dangers of something stronger than them swinging at them. A hill giant takes a swing trying to send the little mage into the hills…and for the first time in his life…He succeeds!
And depending on the effect…the mage might not have the armor when he lands.
Just some thoughts.
Magic armor should be penetrated by magic piercing weapons.
Good question. If I remember correctly, The Cleric and the Wizard have spells that inflict damage that ignores armor. Many monsters also have magic damage that ignores armor.
The Wizard and The Mage have Arcane Ward and Arcane Armor, which specifically protects against magic attacks. The Witch and The Mage have tags such as Piercing 2, Piercing 3 and Ignores Armor.
So, I think the real question here is, Do the Piercing 2, Piercing 3 and Ignores Armor tags work against Arcane Ward and Arcane Armor, or are they intended only to pierce mundane armor?
Yea I’m curious how this all interacts. Summon, Sage LaTorra
And Jacob Randolph
/sub
IMO, it’s really quite easy, it’s an Effects-based system. Armor 2 is Armor 2 in terms of stopping damage, no matter the source. Piercing 2 is Piercing 2, no matter the source.
Now, the source may have other in-game effects, such as the appearance of being armored vs the appearance of having a glowing force field affecting how you are perceived, or the weight of physical armor making you heavier and more cumbersome. But in terms of combat numbers, it’s all the same unless you have a specific modifier on some unique item or monster (“Armor cannot be pierced by non-magical weapons” for instance).
fiction first. Tell me about that armor from The Wizard. How does it prevent damage? Then it should become obvious whether or not the sharp, sharp edges of a sword will pierce it.
I.favour hte armor is armor argument from a purly practical standpoint. Its easier to do it that way and not worry about tracking armor types.
Yeah, while there is clearly physical armor and arcane armor, I’m thinking piercing is piercing.
Piercing and Ignore Armor should go right through any armor, even unique armors like +2 Armor vs. Fire or the Mage’s Arcane Armor.
I think every answer in this thread works.
For me, unless the fiction clearly dictates otherwise, piercing is piercing, armor is armor, and ignores armor is ignores armor. I don’t go looking for cases where those don’t apply, but if someone mentions it (like a player saying “wait, his sword can go through that?”) we’ll figure it out based on the fiction.
Awesome. Thanks, Sage LaTorra
You don’t say “Damage is Damage”, when the wizard tries to punch the dragon. that just doesn’t make sense. In the same sense, you don’t say “Piercing is Piercing” when the weapon is designed to split metal armor and the target has a magical arcane ward. If even damage is susceptible to the law of “Fiction First”, why on earth wouldn’t piercing be?
Really, it can go any way a group wants. Simple mechanics, cool. Fiction First, Awesome. Like most things in the game, Fiction First might lend to more interesting situations and play.
It is fiction first. The fiction is “this weapon can get through/around most armor.”
This is just like the dragon thing. I don’t stop for every single monster and think “oh, but can a sword hurt them?” because it’s usually obvious when I need to think about it.
It’s always fiction first. Always. Just remember that “piercing 2” is a part of the fiction too.
Jim Schmitz if the dragon can’t be hurt then punching it dosen’t trigger a move at all. But once the move is triggered the armor is armor & damage is damage.
Konrad Zielinski , that’s a good point too.
There is much wisdom here 🙂
For the record, I would relish the golden opportunity given by a player that says “I punch the Dragon.”
=)
Guy Sodin
My Initiate snuck up behind a Hill Giant that was about to throw a rock, tore out both of his hamstrings in 1 single unarmed attack, causing the boulder to fall on his head. He would most definitely be willing to punch a dragon, and that dragon would FEEL it!
In a previous campaign, the wizard an I agreed that magic armor is not ignored by most “ignores armour” attacks, but can be pierced. However, this cut both ways – NPCs with magic armour can use it against the wizard’s fireball.
With a different player and a different visualization of how things work, I could see it going the other way, though.
Years ago in an old D&D game the monk said “I do a flying kick at the dragon”. The GM said “the dragon opens his mouth”.
This should depend in part on how the armor manifests. Is it a shimmering yellow aura? Or an invisible kinetic field? Or does it resemble actual platemail, just made from the Void and weighing nothing? I’d answer that question before going further.