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

[Charlaquin]

The one he claims to be solving with goal and approach.

Which is…?

 

[iserith]

It is also clear that the action is to smash the vase.
It is certainly committed.
Additional information about how the character smashes the vase is not given but the statement itself is very clear. There is clearly a vase. It is clearly intended to be smashed. The minimal content of the words is crystal clear - or, in terms of the words used, not in the least vague. Do you agree, "I smash the vase" shows commitment?

The action is uncommitted as to how the character approaches smashing the vase. That leaves it an open question. Who answers that question? Either the DM asks the player for clarity and the DM uses that answer or the DM assumes and establishes that for the player, potentially leading to disagreement. And if the DM doesn't normally ask for this level of clarity, then as Lanefan and others pointed out, now the player may be suspicious as to why and we can end up with "metagaming" or "takebacks." None of these potential downsides can occur if the table's expectation is that the player is reasonably specific about their goal and approach in the first place.

 

[greg kaye]

If no one else smashes this vase, I will.

 

[Charlaquin]

How often is the detail of how they smash the vase relevant? How much detail do they need to give? If they smash the vase with their primary weapon, do they need to clarify a horizontal swing or a vertical?

I would consider that an unreasonable degree of specificity to require.

Full strength hitting a baseball out of the park swing or just hard enough to break it?

Since breaking it is the goal, “hard enough to break it” seems a reasonable assumption, unless the player specifies otherwise.

What level of detail is enough and how does anyone know?

As explained in my previous post, a reasonable level. One who doesn’t have a good intuitive sense of a reasonable degree of specificity will develop such sense pretty quickly based on what action declarations do or don’t lead to follow-up questions.

 

[iserith]

If no one else smashes this vase, I will.

The question is how.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is also clear that the action is to smash the vase.

It’s clear that the intention is to smash the vase. The action that is being performed to result in that intention being fulfilled is not clear.

 

[greg kaye]

It’s clear that the intention is to smash the base. The action that is being performed to result in that intention being fulfilled is not clear.

absolutely. It's clear that the character involved is embarking on a clear action to smash the vase. If dice need to be rolled or other things need to be considered, they will be.

 

[Charlaquin]

absolutely

So the action declaration is not clear.

 

[greg kaye]

The question is how.

That wouldn't matter to me.

 

[greg kaye]

So the action declaration is not clear.

The action declaration is clear in its intent to perform an action to smash the vase. What do you think "I smash the vase" means, I'm going fishing?