D&D 5E Attacking worn or carried objects

[Rya.Reisender]

So I'm mostly curious on how other DMs rule this.

Let's say the PCs all have darkvision and are facing enemies without darkvision during the night. The enemies are holding lanterns, others have lamps attached to their belts. They need these so they even have a chance to defeat the PCs. Now the PCs, instead of attacking the creatures, want to attack the lanterns and lamps to destroy them. In particular:

PC A wants to shoot the a lantern/lamp with his bow to destroy it.
PC B wants to use a spell that says "All creatures in the AoE ... take x ice damage" and wants the lanterns/lamps to take the damage (or extinguish). The spell does not mention being able to hit objects.

1. Would you allow that?
2. Do you make a difference between being carried and attached to the belt?
3. How would you play that out (what kind of rolls, etc.)?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I'm not a DM, but our DM has allowed us to attack objects with weapons and spells. I'm not sure how he comes up the object's AC/DC though.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I would either give a Dex save to the one holding the object. Spell damage AoE would not work (otherwise characters would lose clothes, armor, everything as a matter of course), but I would allow a spell with an attack roll, again with the Dex save to avoid.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Let's say the PCs all have darkvision and are facing enemies without darkvision during the night. The enemies are holding lanterns, others have lamps attached to their belts. They need these so they even have a chance to defeat the PCs. Now the PCs, instead of attacking the creatures, want to attack the lanterns and lamps to destroy them. In particular:

PC A wants to shoot the a lantern/lamp with his bow to destroy it.
PC B wants to use a spell that says "All creatures in the AoE ... take x ice damage" and wants the lanterns/lamps to take the damage (or extinguish). The spell does not mention being able to hit objects.

1. Would you allow that?
2. Do you make a difference between being carried and attached to the belt?
3. How would you play that out (what kind of rolls, etc.)?

I'd allow a carried or openly worn object to be attacked. I'd probably make the AC not easy to represent the small size.
I think I'd give the attack disadvantage as well. If only one roll would have hit the object, then it is struck and damaged but not extinguished. (Smashing a lantern is more likely to produce more fire than put it out.)

As to the spell, it would depend on what spell it was and what the spell text said. Technically by RAW you couldn't use it to affect objects, but for spells like Cone of Cold, that appear to blanket an area I'd allow it to extinguish fires. Probably give a carried or worn object a separate save, with protected flames having advantage on it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Same. I’m all for PCs getting creative, but using an AoE sounds like it could open up a whole can of worms, not to mention is kinda trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I would either give a Dex save to the one holding the object. Spell damage AoE would not work (otherwise characters would lose clothes, armor, everything as a matter of course), but I would allow a spell with an attack roll, again with the Dex save to avoid.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

For simplicity, attacking an object someone is carrying is the same AC the carrier has but the attack is at disadvantage because of the small size. You can't use any ability/feat that normally lets you take disadvantage for some other reason. Since you are attacking an object, you also can't sneak attack.

In some cases I'd set the AC higher depending on the size of the target (e.g. shooting an amulet an NPC is wearing is going to be very difficult).

Many spells such as Magic Missile don't let you target objects, and area effects never affect held objects.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Thanks for the answers (more comments are still welcome!).

I personally try to stick as close to RAW as possible and how I read it, I think that objects worn or carried are protected from all damage. That's mainly because all spell texts that actually refer to being able to affect objects say "objects not worn or carried". I'd claim that spells that specifically refer to "All creatures in the AoE..." can't damage objects at all.

As for direct attacks, I currently only allow them to target either creature or objects not worn or carried. To destroy worn objects, you first need to make an attack at disadvantage with the benefit of making the creature drop the lamp on success and then after the lamp dropped it's available for direct attack until someone picks it up again.

Allowing for AoE to destroy objects seems to be a bit too good, considered that having no lamps basically means for the rest of the combat all the creature's attack will be at disadvantage and all the attacks against the creature will be at advantage (blinded condition). Also it feels like if I allow too much then the creativity will just turn into a common thing. The group having the idea to destroy the lamps to win a hard combat is a nice idea once. But once allowed, the group will just do exactly that every single combat against creature without darkvision and then it just turns into boring. I feel I should make the chance of success low enough that special strategies are only effective in very specific situations.

What motivated me to create the thread was because one of my players wanted to use Ice Knife to extinguish a lamp and pointed out that the lamp is inanimate and therefore automatically fails the saving throw from the AoE and I pointed out to the player that its AoE effect specifically states it only affects creatures. So I'm a bit stuck between allowing creativity and thinking "this is too good to allow".

When I looked around the internet, I mostly saw that other people agreed that by RAW, worn and carried objects are completely immune to being targetted and effected anyway. And I see how it might not make sense realistically, but makes sense from a balance viewpoint.

It's interesting to see that here are quite some DMs that would allow it anyways to some extend. Some of you seem to use "attack at disadvantage" system I use too. Using saving throws or increasing the AC is kinda interesting too because in situations where a creature already has advantage and disadvantage, additional disadvantage won't make a difference, but a saving throw or higher AC still would make a difference. Hmm.

The cone of cold example would be one I would consider too good. Say you have 3 creatures with 3 lamps you can hit with it. Then the spell would not only normally damage the creature, but additionally gain the benefit of extinguished three lamps (on failed save) at no extra cost.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One litmus test for this kind of 'outside the box thinking' is "how would you guys feel about enemies doing the same to you?" How'd the wizard like an enemy's fireball to burn up his material component pouch, how'd the paladin like a goblin to steal his holy avenger right out of its sheath?

 

[Rya.Reisender]

One litmus test for this kind of 'outside the box thinking' is "how would you guys feel about enemies doing the same to you?" How'd the wizard like an enemy's fireball to burn up his material component pouch, how'd the paladin like a goblin to steal his holy avenger right out of its sheath?

Heh, that was actually my first attempt at stopping them. When they came up with that I first said: "Well, I could allow that, but then my NPCs can do the same.", but they replied with they think they'd benefit from it more often than the NPCs would.

(Also honestly, I couldn't be so cruel and just... burn all their loot every single combat.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, that was actually my first attempt at stopping them. When they came up with that I first said: "Well, I could allow that, but then my NPCs can do the same.", but they replied with they think they'd benefit from it more often than the NPCs would.

(Also honestly, I couldn't be so cruel and just... burn all their loot every single combat.)

Seems fair to me. They should find some cool under-water-exploration items. Cloak of the Manta Ray ... Helm of Underwater Action... followed by rumors of a fabulous treasure in a sunken wreck... followed by a Sahaugin Shaman's AE, and drowning.