D&D 5E Attacking worn or carried objects

[Hriston]

Here's a more thorough answer on how I would rule:

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?

I'd allow PC A to shoot his bow, and I'd allow PC B to cast the spell, if that's what their players want them to do. Before that though, I'd tell their players what kind of results are possible from taking those actions and what other actions they might take to better achieve the results they're after.

2. Do you make a difference between being carried and attached to the belt?

Yes. For carried items to be damaged, I use the optional Disarm rule from DMG, p 271, which only works with a weapon attack. After it has been dropped, the item itself can be attacked. For worn items to take damage, I require the creature wearing the item to be defeated first, as in reduced to 0 hit points. Then the item can be attacked.

3. How would you play that out (what kind of rolls, etc.)?

If PC A is trying to destroy one of the hand-held lanterns, he would need to make an attack with his bow contested by a STR (Athletics) or DEX (Acrobatics) check from the creature holding the lantern. If PC A is successful, the lantern drops to the ground and can be targeted by another attack. If not, the creature keeps hold of it. Either way, the creature is unharmed by this attack.

If PC A is trying to destroy one of the worn lamps, he would need to reduce the hit points of the creature wearing the lamp to 0. Then he could shoot the lamp.

Whether trying to destroy one of the hand-held lanterns or one of the worn lamps, PC B would need to reduce a creature's hit points to 0 to be able to target its lantern or lamp. Also, when attempting to destroy a lantern or lamp, PC B would need to use a spell that can target an object, like firebolt, or one that damages objects that aren't worn or carried, like shatter. Also, a spell like thunder wave can be used to push any dropped lanterns away from the caster, which, depending on the radius of light emitted, may be of some benefit.

Assuming the lanterns or lamps are made with glass windows, I'd set their AC at 13, and most likely being tiny, fragile objects, I'd give them 2 hit points. (DMG, pp 246-47)

 

[Rya.Reisender]

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.

I'd actually think that RAW was intentionally written like that. There are spells that can't affect objects at all (Magic Missile). There are spells that can ignite object that are not worn or carried, but not damage them (Flaming Sphere / Fireball). There are spells that can damage objects that are not worn or carried (Shatter). There are spells that can ignite and damage objects that are not worn or carried (Fire Storm, Delayed Blast Fireball and Meteor Swarm).
The general rules on spells say:

Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets
to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description
tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a
point of origin for an area of effect

Consequently if a spell's description does not say it can target/damage objects, then the spell just can't.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Reading the suggested rule on Disarm in the DMG and rereading on contests made me realize that RAW probably wants you to resolve all these situations via contests.

So in general:
1. The player uses an action and says what he does and what he wants to accomplish with it.
2. The DM determines if that action fails automatically or if not, what roll the player should do and if it's at advantage or disadvantage.
3. The DM determines against what roll the player's roll should be contested against.
4. Player either succeeds or fails to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish.

I think you got a point with saying I should not "disallow" things, but rather should just allow everything, even if it's sure to fail. I'm currently debating a lot with my players on what they can do and they keep asking me what rolls that would involve, but I feel I might be wrong in even telling them that. Because right now I feel like they just want to metagame to get the best chance of success. So they keep asking me until I offer them a roll that would yield good odds for them.

Though, I decided to stick with not allowing spells to target objects, unless they state they can.

 

[Harzel]

I'd actually think that RAW was intentionally written like that.

I didn't say anything was unintentional, but also, I don't know what you mean by "like that". I don't think that I characterized the spell descriptions as having any particular quality.

Consequently if a spell's description does not say it can target/damage objects, then the spell just can't.

Oh, so maybe by "like that" you meant "with the intent that a spell has only those effects specifically described in the spell description, and in all other respects leaves the world completely unaffected"? That certainly simplifies adjudication, but it leaves a lot less room for creative use of spells.

 

[Harzel]

Reading the suggested rule on Disarm in the DMG and rereading on contests made me realize that RAW probably wants you to resolve all these situations via contests.

So in general:
1. The player uses an action and says what he does and what he wants to accomplish with it.
2. The DM determines if that action fails automatically or if not, what roll the player should do and if it's at advantage or disadvantage.

Probably should at least consider the possibility of success without a roll as well.

3. The DM determines against what roll the player's roll should be contested against.
4. Player either succeeds or fails to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish.

I think you got a point with saying I should not "disallow" things, but rather should just allow everything, even if it's sure to fail. I'm currently debating a lot with my players on what they can do and they keep asking me what rolls that would involve, but I feel I might be wrong in even telling them that. Because right now I feel like they just want to metagame to get the best chance of success. So they keep asking me until I offer them a roll that would yield good odds for them.

For myself, I don't see anything wrong with letting them know what ability (or maybe abilities) you think would be most critical to their success in an attempted action. It just seems like part of trying to ensure that you are both thinking of sort of the same thing with respect to their action description, and allowing them the same ability to estimate chances of success that their characters would have.

Though, I decided to stick with not allowing spells to target objects, unless they state they can.

Do you mean "target" or "affect"? For AoEs in particular, there can certainly be a difference. For example, Tidal Wave can affect (extinguish) flames, even though it does not target them.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I didn't say anything was unintentional, but also, I don't know what you mean by "like that". I don't think that I characterized the spell descriptions as having any particular quality.

You did say the spell descriptions were inconsistent, which seemed to imply to me that you criticize their quality and claim they might not actually say what they mean.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Do you mean "target" or "affect"? For AoEs in particular, there can certainly be a difference. For example, Tidal Wave can affect (extinguish) flames, even though it does not target them.

Both. If a spell does not specifically say you can target an object with it, then you can't. If a spell does not specifically say it affects objects, then it doesn't.

 

[Yaarel]

Hmmm. This is going into dangerous territory with regard to gaming balance. But sometimes.

Maybe as a DM ad-hoc ruling. A DM can allow a player character to specifically target an attended object, if additionally succeeding on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) skill check versus a Passive Wisdom (Perception) DC, or a Passive Strength (Athletics) DC, or similar, whichever makes most sense in the narrative.

In other words, attacking an attended object is a form of pickpocketing.



Fighter wants to disarm a hostile.

Fighter wants to maneuver the sword to catch away the sword of the hostile.

First, the Fighter must successfully hit the hostile swinging the sword against the AC.

Additionally, if hitting, instead of dealing damage, the Fighter tries to make a successful Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) skill check.

The DM decides the best defense of the hostile is Strength (Athletics) to simply keep control of the sword by brute force. Thus the DM determines the Passive Strength (Athletics) DC.

If the Fighter is again successful, the hostile loses the sword and becomes disarmed.



If a Wizard is using a spell, then similarly the spell must succeed, typically by the hostile failing the save against it. Instead of inflicting the spell effect against the hostile, the Wizard makes an Intelligence (Arcane) skill check to specifically target an attended object, by doing a spell stunt. Or possibly, the DM decides the Wizard must also make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) skill check in order to do the spell stunt. Then the DM decides the hostile’s best passive skill defense against the Wizard.

 

[Yaarel]

Remember, players love to disarm creatures. But players hate to be disarmed by creatures.

So keep it fair and rare.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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

Pretty much, I kind of eyeball it and after a fight if they did a lot of AoE spells like that I'll mark off what would have been burned up. My players don't protest when they look over the remains of foes that took 72 points of fire damage and the burnables are all pretty much gone or heavily damaged. In the same breath I'll also tell them that armor they take off a foe needs to be repaired by a blacksmith after they hacked that dude for 158 damage while he was wearing it.