Vaalingrade
Legend
I want a big enough damage roll with a normal sword to cut the anvil in half to show how awesome the wielder is.
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?
- Thread starter Asisreo
- Start date
Paul Farquhar
Legend
There are class abilities that allow a normal weapon to count as magical.
Vaalingrade
Legend
So none that let the wielder be awesome. They all need fantasy steroids.
cranberry
Adventurer
Back in the 1E days, there were mechanics for that. Generally, the object got a saving throw depending on what it was made of, or if it was magical.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
I was avoiding specificity so that you can generalize your idea of item breaking.
For instance, I personally allow breaking anything, but I let the player decide how they want to try and I inform them whether it will work.
Like, I don't have a problem with a player saying "I want to break a warship with one punch" but I ask them "Did you want to use strength or to break it with an attack?" And if they, say, choose to break it with an attack, I'll say "alright, the warship has a lot of HP, though, and the damage threshold is 20."
Functionally, its likely impossible, but I don't want to outright say "no." I've been a DM long enough to know that sometimes players have surprises that might be able to surpass what I would assume to be an outright impossible feat.
But I don't like saying "you can't even attempt that". If the player realizes that they can't make it, then I save time by not making them roll.
For instance, I personally allow breaking anything, but I let the player decide how they want to try and I inform them whether it will work.
Like, I don't have a problem with a player saying "I want to break a warship with one punch" but I ask them "Did you want to use strength or to break it with an attack?" And if they, say, choose to break it with an attack, I'll say "alright, the warship has a lot of HP, though, and the damage threshold is 20."
Functionally, its likely impossible, but I don't want to outright say "no." I've been a DM long enough to know that sometimes players have surprises that might be able to surpass what I would assume to be an outright impossible feat.
But I don't like saying "you can't even attempt that". If the player realizes that they can't make it, then I save time by not making them roll.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Class abilities are what makes characters awesome in D&D. Otherwise everyone would play commoners.
Well if we're talking a katana, obviously you can split the atom if you're not careful.
Clint_L
Legend
This is kind of an interesting topic. Breaking things goes way back in the history of D&D, because it turns out to be something that players want to do all the time. I recall that one of my main annoyances with early computer RPGs was how limited you were in being able to solve problems by breaking stuff. As others mentioned, the original game had rules for breaking stuff, and some of these (e.g. "bending bars") were significant enough to have their own specific tables.
I think 5e's Difficulty Check system does a good job in handling the issue, though as always it does place an onus on the DM being able to make a reasonable call. The other method 5e uses is to basically treat an object like an inert creature, giving it HP, AC and resistances. The latter is more important in combat, or elsewhere if players might be trying to break something under a time constraint. A classic example would be breaking a ship during a nautical encounter (just had to deal with such a scenario a few weeks ago). Again, though there is limited guidance in the rules (e.g. ship stats in Ghosts of Saltmarsh), a lot is left to DM discretion (the mantra of 5e).
One thing I maybe handle differently than others is that I will straight up tell players when something is almost certainly unbreakable by the method they are suggesting, rather than let them experiment (unless the latter is hilarious). This is because I figure that some things should be kind of obvious, and if it isn't, I probably have not described the situation sufficiently. So if a player wanted to try to break an anvil with their plain old sword, I would just tell them, "It's an anvil. Looking at it, it is obviously going to break your sword before your sword breaks it." Then they can do what they want.
I think 5e's Difficulty Check system does a good job in handling the issue, though as always it does place an onus on the DM being able to make a reasonable call. The other method 5e uses is to basically treat an object like an inert creature, giving it HP, AC and resistances. The latter is more important in combat, or elsewhere if players might be trying to break something under a time constraint. A classic example would be breaking a ship during a nautical encounter (just had to deal with such a scenario a few weeks ago). Again, though there is limited guidance in the rules (e.g. ship stats in Ghosts of Saltmarsh), a lot is left to DM discretion (the mantra of 5e).
One thing I maybe handle differently than others is that I will straight up tell players when something is almost certainly unbreakable by the method they are suggesting, rather than let them experiment (unless the latter is hilarious). This is because I figure that some things should be kind of obvious, and if it isn't, I probably have not described the situation sufficiently. So if a player wanted to try to break an anvil with their plain old sword, I would just tell them, "It's an anvil. Looking at it, it is obviously going to break your sword before your sword breaks it." Then they can do what they want.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I treat it the same as every other action declaration:
What is your goal, and what is your approach to achieving that goal?
Then I decide whether, given the approach to the goal in the context of the situation, if it is an outright success, outright failure, or has an uncertain outcome. If it's uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then I ask for an ability check with a DC appropriate to the difficulty.
What is your goal, and what is your approach to achieving that goal?
Then I decide whether, given the approach to the goal in the context of the situation, if it is an outright success, outright failure, or has an uncertain outcome. If it's uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then I ask for an ability check with a DC appropriate to the difficulty.
There are very few instances of "No."
So, if I could break it myself with my bare hands, it's a clear yes. Probably don't need a roll.
If it'd take me a notable tool to break, and the party has tools or weapons, then still yes. And I'm only going to worry about rolls if the time it takes really matters. If the barbarian has a minute to whack a thing with a hammer a few times, most mundane objects are done for.
If it'd take tools for me to break, and it'd be a project to do so, then we really aren't in the realm of "breaking" any more. You don't "break" castle walls, for instance.
Similar Threads
