D&D 5E Attacking worn or carried objects

[Tony Vargas]

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).

5e was intentionally written in natural language. So a spell that conjures up fire may or may not mention or ipmly or state in rules-sounding verbiage, that it will or normally can't set fire to a creature's clothes or a bale of hay or whatever - it's up to the DM to interpret and make a ruling.

The rules were intentionally written to be readable without learning a new gaming jargon (though maybe not without having some familiarity with the de-facto patois of D&D in general), in natural language, and to be used as a starting point by the DM, not to be fetishized and cynically leveraged as 'RAW.'

 

[Satyrn]

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.

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] would be proud of you. This is what he's been advocating for for years.

As you work to make this your general way of playing, I'd suggest some leeway in the players asking about what rolls are required at first, but work to cut it down quickly to not asking (like over a couple sessions or 4).

And on your part, you ought to "generous" in allowing things to work. That is, don't set ridiculously high DCs once you've decided that something doesn't automatically fail. I like using DC 10 (reasonable) or 15 (difficult) for nearly every ad hoc DC, with the occasional 20 for the "this just shouldn't work" checks that I haven't ruled impossible. I find setting DCs lower than 10 to be pointless (might as well just not bother rolling) unless the players really want to roll dice.

Also, I like telling the players the DC before they roll.

My philosophy is "Let the players arbitrate what is possible, I'll arbitrate what's likely."

The players do their bit by declaring their action (no matter how ridiculous or boring) and I do my bit by setting DCs

 

[Rya.Reisender]

5e was intentionally written in natural language. So a spell that conjures up fire may or may not mention or ipmly or state in rules-sounding verbiage, that it will or normally can't set fire to a creature's clothes or a bale of hay or whatever - it's up to the DM to interpret and make a ruling.

The rules were intentionally written to be readable without learning a new gaming jargon (though maybe not without having some familiarity with the de-facto patois of D&D in general), in natural language, and to be used as a starting point by the DM, not to be fetishized and cynically leveraged as 'RAW.'

I disagree here, at least when we are talking about what spells can target, the rules are very specifically explaining that the spell description is what defines exactly what can be targetted. It even goes so far and explains that if it the spell description says "hostile creature", you couldn't target yourself with it. That's definitely RAW. Nowhere it says here that the DM determines what a spell can target.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

And on your part, you ought to "generous" in allowing things to work. That is, don't set ridiculously high DCs once you've decided that something doesn't automatically fail. I like using DC 10 (reasonable) or 15 (difficult) for nearly every ad hoc DC, with the occasional 20 for the "this just shouldn't work" checks that I haven't ruled impossible. I find setting DCs lower than 10 to be pointless (might as well just not bother rolling) unless the players really want to roll dice.

Also, I like telling the players the DC before they roll.

Actually the solution via contests does not actually require the DM to determine a DC. Only what kind of ability check the target has to make (e.g. Athletics/Acrobatics). Or alternatively use the passive value as DC.

 

[Satyrn]

Actually the solution via contests does not actually require the DM to determine a DC. Only what kind of ability check the target has to make (e.g. Athletics/Acrobatics). Or alternatively use the passive value as DC.

Oh, yeah. I got sidetracked thinking about the times when an opposed roll won't make sense - like swinging on a vine to cross a cliff.

 

[Ristamar]

If the attacker is trying to damage the lantern, I'd use the object rules in the DMG as a guideline (probably around 14 AC, 10hp). I might give the attacker Disadvantage, as well, since the person holding the lantern will likely be constantly in motion.

Alternatively, if the attacker is simply trying to disarm the lantern, I'd probably have them make an attack roll versus the passive Strength (Athletics) or passive Dexterity (Acrobatics) score of the person holding the lantern. I might also allow Dexterity (Sleight of Hand).

 

[Mistwell]

Shatterspike is an "official" 5e weapon now. So, it must be intended that you can attack held objects.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

Depends on the situation here. The initial example was lanterns. Those would not be at disadvantage, especially if your attacking by surprise. Lanterns by their nature are being held out as an easy target by the holder to light their path.

 

[snickersnax]

If the attacker is trying to damage the lantern, I'd use the object rules in the DMG as a guideline (probably around 14 AC, 10hp). I might give the attacker Disadvantage, as well, since the person holding the lantern will likely be constantly in motion.

10 hp seems like a lot. that's more than many first level characters and more than a goblin. It also means that you have to drop a lantern at least 30 feet to have a decent chance of breaking it.

Depends on the situation here. The initial example was lanterns. Those would not be at disadvantage, especially if your attacking by surprise. Lanterns by their nature are being held out as an easy target by the holder to light their path.

Imagining myself fighting with a lantern in one hand, I would most likely be keeping the hand that had the lantern well back from the fight to avoid it being attacked. Also so that I'm not looking into the light.

Disadvantage to attack the lantern seems reasonable (barring surprise).

 

[Oofta]

Depends on the situation here. The initial example was lanterns. Those would not be at disadvantage, especially if your attacking by surprise. Lanterns by their nature are being held out as an easy target by the holder to light their path.

True, but AC generally considers hitting a person-sized object, not a small lantern that can move much more erratically than a person would move; hitting a moving target is more difficult than most people think. Different story if they're just standing still.

Of course this just my quick and simple rule and nothing bearing any resemblance to anything official.