D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?

[Oofta]

If the Hulk can down a warship with one punch then so can my Level 20 Barbarian with max Strength. Of course it might be DC 50 to do it

The hulk can throw a tank like it's a Frisbee, a 20 strength fighter can lift 600 pounds, maybe a bit more with an athletics check. People really underestimate how strong many comic book superheroes are.

 

[Shiroiken]

In general, which is all we can assume from the OP, since it lacks details or context, if the character has the appropriate tools and time, there's no reason why a character shouldn't be able to break something non-magical. I'll often call for a roll to determine how long it takes, but failure is not an option.

For example, if the party comes across a barred door, I'll allow a Str/Athletics check to bust the door open despite the bar. If this fails, and they have axes, sledgehammers, or similar equipment, they can eventually break the door down. If someone is behind the door, they'll likely be surprised by the party busting in, but otherwise they will have plenty of time to prepare.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As long as they can explain the reasoning sensibly, sure. If it's somewhat risky to break it, I might have someone roll an appropriate defensive thing (e.g. in DW, that's Defy Danger; in 4e, I'd probably have the object "attack" the PC's Fort or Ref defense; etc.)

But that's kind of my stance on...almost everything. Explain it. "Walk me through it," is how I usually say it. What are you trying to do? What do you see happening? Virtually all of the time, we can collectively make that happen.

 

[Tonguez]

The hulk can throw a tank like it's a Frisbee, a 20 strength fighter can lift 600 pounds, maybe a bit more with an athletics check. People really underestimate how strong many comic book superheroes are.

A goliath (powerful build) str 24 can lift 1440 lbs, add something to enlarge it (enlarge or giant might) then they can lift just over a ton.

Sure its not the Hulk but in a fantasy world I’m going to let the bulked up PC barbarian try to punch the warship and at least crack the hull - and knock it prone

 

[Oofta]

A goliath (powerful build) str 24 can lift 1440 lbs, add something to enlarge it (enlarge or giant might) then they can lift just over a ton.

Sure its not the Hulk but in a fantasy world I’m going to let the bulked up PC barbarian try to punch the warship and at least crack the hull - and knock it prone

Maybe in your campaign. Powerful build and the ability to lift does not translate into doing additional blunt force damage.

Given enough time and the proper materials, sure. Punching it? You're more likely to break your hand than the ship IMHO.

EDIT: of course it just depends on the ship as well. Some ships had very thin hulls, others had hulls of oak up to 5 inches thick. It's going to take a while to get through the latter, even with a pickaxe.

 

[Charlaquin]

The goal of smashing a vase is to ... wait for it ... to smash the vase.

First of all, yes, obviously the goal is to smash the vase, what’s not clear in the action declaration “I smash the vase” is the approach. But whatever, you’re comfortable with assuming the approach unless you have a specific reason to ask for further clarification, and that’s fine. It’s not how I do it, but I don’t begrudge you the way you choose to run the game, it’s weird that you’re getting hung up on the way I do.

Moreover, smashing a vase was not the example I was discussing with @Asisreo. They specifically gave the example of a player saying they try to destroy a warship in one punch - which personally, I would consider a perfectly clear action declaration: the goal is to destroy the warship and the approach is to punch it once. Which to me seems like it would not have any chance of success and therefore would fail without a roll, but Asisero responded, and I quote:

The circumstances I want to avoid are when the player isn't trying to be cool but their actual goal doesn't have to specifically be what they initially say

So clearly in the example, they consider the goal of the action at least potentially unclear. And furthermore, they said,

I think players, especially newer players, will assume their intentions are clear when they declare their action but don't realize that they've added something extra that the DM might interpret too literally.

Which is exactly why I recommend setting the expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach, to avoid these kinds of miscommunications.

Now, if you don’t like doing that, fine. Run your games however you like, it’s none of my business. But since the OP of this thread was specifically asking about situations where action declarations can be unclear, I advised them as to how I recommend dealing with such situations.

I don't remember the last time I had to clarify a PC's goal of an action. I'm sure it's happened, I just don't remember the last time I had to say "What are you trying to do?" To have them state it every time, or even on a regular basis, would just be annoying overhead to me.

Ok.

I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't understand the value and no one has ever given actual play examples that show how it's particularly useful or adds to the game.

Here’s one, straight from the OP.

Like if a player is trying to attack the castle gate, the DM probably has good reason to assume that what they're doing is breaking down the gate. But the details between the line leave some other interpretations open, like the player might want to just draw attention to themselves or trying to be random to confuse the guards.

 

[Charlaquin]

You were discussing a case where:

so yes, before the players (hopefully) made their plans clear, they were unclear.
However:

or something like that, even though it hadn't been previously clear that they had intended to smash the vase, when they finally stated it, that was the vase drop moment.

What’s unclear about the action declaration “I smash the vase” is not the goal but the approach. By what means are you trying to smash the vase? Do you drop it on the floor? Do you throw it against the wall? Do you crush it between your hands? Do you hit it with the pommel of your sword? It may be relevant to the action resolution, and if it is, I would rather it have been clearly stated first, rather than having to stop the action to ask, especially since the question itself may affect the way you approach the action.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the Hulk can down a warship with one punch then so can my Level 20 Barbarian with max Strength. Of course it might be DC 50 to do it

A max strength, level 20 Barbarian only hits DC 38 on a natural 20, even assuming expertise in an applicable skill. 42 with a max rolled Guidance, 48 with max rolled bardic Inspiration. Basically, if the DC would be 50, there’s no point calling for a roll, because no D&D 5e character can succeed under any circumstances.

 

[Ancalagon]

Who knows the DC when the warship is of "indescript material, location, and size"

maybe it's a war canoe! I can break those, given a stout tool and enough time... and I'm not hulk, even though I play one in D&D.

 

[Oofta]

First of all, yes, obviously the goal is to smash the vase, what’s not clear in the action declaration “I smash the vase” is the approach. But whatever, you’re comfortable with assuming the approach unless you have a specific reason to ask for further clarification, and that’s fine. It’s not how I do it, but I don’t begrudge you the way you choose to run the game, it’s weird that you’re getting hung up on the way I do.

I'm not hung up on what you do. What I get hung up on is the broad statement "By doing goal and approach this problem goes away" which is quite different from "I use goal and approach because then I know ____". What gets stated is not particularly helpful unless you give more detail on what it means. In other words, it's not clear how often it is used (Always? Just out of combat? When the DM indicates something unusual?) and it's not clear how it makes much of a difference.

For example "I open the door". Okay ... I'm going to assume you open the door like a normal human being. Since I'm not a "gotcha" DM I won't punish people for

If you literally followed "goal and approach" it would have to be something like "I want to get the door open so I reach down with my hand and grasp the knob and twist it while pulling." Or ... how you go about picking a lock (does a locksmith just get a free pass?) or detailed explanations of how to disable traps, or any number of things.

But y'all don't ever give actual examples or details. I'd ask Iserith, but he refused to answer questions so hard they blocked me. All I want is to understand what you really mean because it's not clear.

Moreover, smashing a vase was not the example I was discussing with @Asisreo. They specifically gave the example of a player saying they try to destroy a warship in one punch - which personally, I would consider a perfectly clear action declaration: the goal is to destroy the warship and the approach is to punch it once. Which to me seems like it would not have any chance of success and therefore would fail without a roll, but Asisero responded, and I quote:

So clearly in the example, they consider the goal of the action at least potentially unclear. And furthermore, they said,

I answered that already. Most of the time the answer would be "It's not going to work". The goal is quite clear, they want to punch a hole in the side of a ship. Is the ship a birch bark battle canoe or old ironsides? The DM needs to make a judgement call on what is practical.

But if it's not clear to the player what material they're trying to break with a punch, which rarely happens, I'll just ask for clarification. It probably happens once every 5-10 game sessions at a guess. So once every 40ish hours of play, if that, the DM has to get a little more detail. I'll try to make notes if it happens over the next week at all where it's not clear, I'm playing a game and running a couple over the weekend.

Which is exactly why I recommend setting the expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach, to avoid these kinds of miscommunications.

Now, if you don’t like doing that, fine. Run your games however you like, it’s none of my business. But since the OP of this thread was specifically asking about situations where action declarations can be unclear, I advised them as to how I recommend dealing with such situations.

Ok.

Here’s one, straight from the OP.

As I answered initially if the players are trying to break down a gate, it depends on the gate. But if they say "I smash down the gate" then I assume they want to actually smash down the gate. If they state "I hit the gate with my axe", that's a different. If it's the latter, I'd say their axe hits the gate with a solid "thunk" and we'll figure out what level of damage I think it would do, which would typically be little or none.

Which is maybe a bigger difference? I don't care if the PC is trying to confuse the guards. In fact, I don't even want to know, I want the guards to react the way I think they should react. Immediately attack? Tell the PC to stop or they'll be dealt with? The PC gets boiling hot water (oil is too expensive, that's a myth) and stones dropped on them from above? I don't really care if their goal is to attract the attention of the guards or not, I'll decide what the guards do based on how I think they'll react based on their perception of events and their goals and attitudes.