Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rya.Reisender" data-source="post: 7236371" data-attributes="member: 6801585">Thanks for the answers (more comments are still welcome!).I personally try to stick as close to RAW as possible and how I read it, I think that objects worn or carried are protected from all damage. That's mainly because all spell texts that actually refer to being able to affect objects say "objects not worn or carried".  I'd claim that spells that specifically refer to "All creatures in the AoE..." can't damage objects at all.As for direct attacks, I currently only allow them to target either creature or objects not worn or carried. To destroy worn objects, you first need to make an attack at disadvantage with the benefit of making the creature drop the lamp on success and then after the lamp dropped it's available for direct attack until someone picks it up again.Allowing for AoE to destroy objects seems to be a bit too good, considered that having no lamps basically means for the rest of the combat all the creature's attack will be at disadvantage and all the attacks against the creature will be at advantage (blinded condition). Also it feels like if I allow too much then the creativity will just turn into a common thing. The group having the idea to destroy the lamps to win a hard combat is a nice idea once. But once allowed, the group will just do exactly that every single combat against creature without darkvision and then it just turns into boring. I feel I should make the chance of success low enough that special strategies are only effective in very specific situations.What motivated me to create the thread was because one of my players wanted to use Ice Knife to extinguish a lamp and pointed out that the lamp is inanimate and therefore automatically fails the saving throw from the AoE and I pointed out to the player that its AoE effect specifically states it only affects creatures. So I'm a bit stuck between allowing creativity and thinking "this is too good to allow".When I looked around the internet, I mostly saw that other people agreed that by RAW, worn and carried objects are completely immune to being targetted and effected anyway. And I see how it might not make sense realistically, but makes sense from a balance viewpoint.It's interesting to see that here are quite some DMs that would allow it anyways to some extend. Some of you seem to use "attack at disadvantage" system I use too. Using saving throws or increasing the AC is kinda interesting too because in situations where a creature already has advantage and disadvantage, additional disadvantage won't make a difference, but a saving throw or higher AC still would make a difference. Hmm.The cone of cold example would be one I would consider too good. Say you have 3 creatures with 3 lamps you can hit with it. Then the spell would not only normally damage the creature, but additionally gain the benefit of extinguished three lamps (on failed save) at no extra cost.</blockquote>

Verification