D&D 5E Attacking worn or carried objects

[Hriston]

I use the optional rule from DMG, p 271. It's a weapon attack to disarm or make a creature drop an item contested by the creature's STR (Athletics) or DEX (Acrobatics) check. The attack's at disadvantage if the item's held with more than one hand. The targeted creature has disadvantage if it's smaller than the attacker, or advantage if it's larger. Once the item is dropped it can be attacked or interacted with in some other way. Notice this can't be done with a spell attack.

 

[iserith]

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.)?

1. Yes, though I don't like saying I "allow" anything, implying I "disallow" other things. A player can try anything. I just narrate the result.
2. I might, if it made sense to in context.
3. For PC A, I would probably call for an attack roll at disadvantage on the object's AC. It would have hit points per the rules for Objects in the DMG. Probably something like AC 14 and 8 hp. For PC B, I'd probably say that spell is inadequate for that task. A spell with another damage type might be more successful. This is discussed in the "Objects and Damage Types" section of the Objects rules.

 

[Satyrn]

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.)

And I think your players are right.

And I also think "remember the NPCs could do it too" is a horrible test. It would stop me from allowing the PCs to hit the monsters with a sword!

But anyway. I'd totally let the archer target a lantern. Disadvantage against the wielder's AC would be good - and if he hits the lantern shatters. I wouldn't care enough to bother with damage.

And with the spellcaster, I'd tell him that no, a damaging area effect spell won't work, but maybe consider what you can get out of prestidigitation, druidcraft or thaumathurgy. There's gotta be an effect one coukd make to extinguish a flame. Or use gust of wind. Or something like that.

 

[iserith]

And I also think "remember the NPCs could do it too" is a horrible test.

Agreed. That is not adjudication in my view - that's essentially a threat to deter a player from taking the action in order to avoid adjudication.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh. On the spellcaster.

If you're up for players bending their spells beyond their written mechanics, it'd be cooler to let the player describe his ice area spell as a cold gust that ( instead of dealing damage) momentarily creates a burst of cold sufficient to extinguish flames, and then give the lanterns saving throws to stay lit. If you're up for freeforming, of course.

If not, then he certainly needs the "right" spell prepared - although that could be gust of wind, create water.

Or Snuff Light. I mean especially if this is gonna be a tactic, a spell to snuff light in an area ought to get researched.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Maybe with the AoE, you could offer them to roll a d20 for each lamp. On a 20, it goes out. Makes it possible, just very difficult.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[snickersnax]

I use the optional rule from DMG, p 271. It's a weapon attack to disarm or make a creature drop an item contested by the creature's STR (Athletics) or DEX (Acrobatics) check. The attack's at disadvantage if the item's held with more than one hand. The targeted creature has disadvantage if it's smaller than the attacker, or advantage if it's larger. Once the item is dropped it can be attacked or interacted with in some other way. Notice this can't be done with a spell attack.

The other way of interacting with objects on another person is with sleight of hand, which would presumably include cutting purse strings or lantern strings...

Jackie Chan Monk/Thief, takes dodge as action and then steals opponents secondary weapons, arrows, disarms, or pulls opponents cloak over their head to gain advantage on attacks....

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.)?

Probably say smart spell use and have each one with a lantern make some kind of save to avoid their light going out most likely. I have AoE affect items that would be affected. Don't fireball the guy you want to get a scroll or potions off of, heck be careful fireballing the heck out of the guy whose metal armor you want to get later. 1e had it a lot better, if you cast devastating AoE spells on people you might ruin their stuff with all that energy that is burning them to death for example. So if you see a guy that is running away with arms full of sweet spell books you can't fireball him and then hes a burn mark on the floor with all these pristine books laying around him. If its a spell that only effects the person but for some reason has no affect on anything he is wearing or carrying, well to me that's just ridiculous unless its some kind of effect that wouldn't burn, freeze etc. Might as well have AoE spells not affect non-enemies so you can just drop them willy nilly and never worry about friendly fire. In the end I just ignore rules that I find stupid and go with what makes sense.

 

[Harzel]

Probably say smart spell use and have each one with a lantern make some kind of save to avoid their light going out most likely. I have AoE affect items that would be affected. Don't fireball the guy you want to get a scroll or potions off of, heck be careful fireballing the heck out of the guy whose metal armor you want to get later. 1e had it a lot better, if you cast devastating AoE spells on people you might ruin their stuff with all that energy that is burning them to death for example. So if you see a guy that is running away with arms full of sweet spell books you can't fireball him and then hes a burn mark on the floor with all these pristine books laying around him. If its a spell that only effects the person but for some reason has no affect on anything he is wearing or carrying, well to me that's just ridiculous unless its some kind of effect that wouldn't burn, freeze etc. Might as well have AoE spells not affect non-enemies so you can just drop them willy nilly and never worry about friendly fire. In the end I just ignore rules that I find stupid and go with what makes sense.

So do you rule that Fireball and such consume clothing, and damage non-metal armor, shields, arrows, etc?

 

[Harzel]

I had not paid close attention before, but the spell descriptions seem quite inconsistent on this point. Fireball and Fire Bolt specifically exclude igniting worn or carried objects; many AoE spells say nothing; and then there's Tidal Wave, which specifically says that it extinguishes "unprotected" flames. So we seem to have RAW at both extremes and in the middle.

For targeted attacks, I'm pretty sure I would rule that it is possible for such things to work. I'm not sure about AoEs. The problem is that if I rule that it does or might have the desired effect when the caster wants it to, I now feel obliged to be consistent about all the other situations in there would be similar effects, even if they were unintended or undesired. And I either have to change Fireball or deal with that forced inconsistency.