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

[Lanefan]

Unless there was some particular reason to keep them from willy nilly breaking something (like being a macguffin or something), I don't see why I'd stop them from breaking something.

If they decide they want to break the macguffin they're free to do so. Wouldn't be the first time...

I use a combination of common sense and the 1e save tables to determine how easy something is to break. Snapping a wand, usually trivial. Breaking a heavy weapon, takes effort but usually do-able. Breaking a bridge, bigger production and not always possible. Etc.

That said, breaking magic items in my game risks the item's contained magic going 'boom' or releasing a wild surge, so it's not a recommended tactic unless all hope is already gone.

 

[Asisreo]

I think if the approach (e.g. “punch the warship once”) doesn’t have a reasonable chance of succeeding at the goal (e.g. “break the warship,”) then its in everyone’s best interests for the DM to just say so. But, fundamentally there’s no object the PCs shouldn’t be able to break, provided they can come up with a feasible approach.

The circumstances I want to avoid are when the player isn't trying to be cool but their actual goal doesn't have to specifically be what they initially say.

For the "punch a warship" example, maybe the player imagines that scenario being the coolest, but they really just want to destroy the warship relatively quickly. If I say "If you can pass the threshold" that might inspire them, for instance, use their powerful magic item to do so rather than shutting down the idea of a warship being destroyed outright.

 

[Quickleaf]

Imagine this:

A player looks at an object of indescript material, location, and size.

The player decides they want to break the object. Do you let them do so? And how do you do it? What is the limit? Does it depend on context or as long as the object doesn't say its unbreakable, they can break it?

Mostly use common sense & Yes, But improv.

PCs want to physically break through a stone wall in an underground tunnel? I'm going to ask if they have picks, hammers, chisels, sledgehammers, or other suitable tools. No? Then the answer is "no." I'm going to tell them it could take 8+ hours. Don't want to spend that time? Then the answer is "no." I'm going to ask if they're ok making a bunch of noise? No? Then the answer is "no."

PCs want to break a treasure chest (wood with metal bands) to get what's inside? Do they have axes and hammers or other suitable tools? No? Then the answer is "no." Do they want to avoid potentially triggering traps that could be triggered by jostling/striking? Yes? Then the answer is "no." I'm going to ask if they're willing to risk breaking fragile object. No? Then the answer is "no." I'm going to ask if they're ok making a bunch of noise? No? Then the answer is "no."

Those are examples of the basic process I go through when players want to break stuff.

 

[Charlaquin]

The circumstances I want to avoid are when the player isn't trying to be cool but their actual goal doesn't have to specifically be what they initially say.

I don’t understand what you mean about the player not trying to be cool, not sure what that has to do with anything. If their goal isn’t what they said, why didn’t they just say what their actual goal was?

For the "punch a warship" example, maybe the player imagines that scenario being the coolest, but they really just want to destroy the warship relatively quickly. If I say "If you can pass the threshold" that might inspire them, for instance, use their powerful magic item to do so rather than shutting down the idea of a warship being destroyed outright.

Again, I am not ruling out the possibility of the warship being destroyed outright. Punching it once just doesn’t have any feasible chance of succeeding in that goal. The onus is on the player to come up with an approach that does have a chance of doing so. If they have a powerful magic item that can do a ton of damage to an object in one hit, then they should declare that they use that to try to destroy the ship instead of declaring that they punch it.

This is just the “I jump to the moon” thing but with destroying objects instead of jumping. If you have a magic item that lets you fly 24,000 miles, just say you use that to get to the moon instead of saying you try to jump there.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I guess I'm asking what details make you outright say "no."

So rather than indescript information, you can add what your limit is.

That's a better question.

• Is "break" totally nonsensical or literally unbreakable? For example, a lake, a sand dune, a mountain, an artifact, or possibly a relic? If yes, then my response is: What? No. [Impossible.]
• Is the object so large or durable that how it could be broken is not readily apparent? For example, fortress gates, a gravity dam, a gigantic boulder, a ship, a wagon, a gold coin, a magical steel shield, a stone wall, or a bound chest. If yes, then the response is: You might be able to do that. How do plan to accomplish it? [Requires non-obvious means or specialty tools, like a ram, explosives, fire, or a lot of time with a sledgehammer or other tools.]
• Is "break" ambiguous or imprecise? For example, a lock, a sword, a door, or a small gemstone. If yes, then my response is: Okay sure, but what do you mean? Describe what you're actually doing. [Clarification needed.]
• Is the object relatively easily broken? For example, ceramic pottery, a wooden box, a wooden chair, a window, or a bow. My response: You break it. [Just works given an appropriate amount of time.]

If there is a chance for dramatic success and failure, a die roll might be involved. But in general, with unlimited time and no interest from outside observers, there's no reason the PCs can't break whatever they want.

Magic items are more durable than other items, but they're not immune to deliberate attempts to destroy them.

 

[billd91]

If they decide they want to break the macguffin they're free to do so. Wouldn't be the first time...

Well, sure, but that’s the point I’d actually be breaking out the rules instead of just saying “go ahead”.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

The circumstances I want to avoid are when the player isn't trying to be cool but their actual goal doesn't have to specifically be what they initially say.

For the "punch a warship" example, maybe the player imagines that scenario being the coolest, but they really just want to destroy the warship relatively quickly. If I say "If you can pass the threshold" that might inspire them, for instance, use their powerful magic item to do so rather than shutting down the idea of a warship being destroyed outright.

If you're worried that your players will be trying to play Dragonball when what you are willing to run is Apollo 13, then the course of action is a conversation.

 

[Hriston]

Imagine this:

A player looks at an object of indescript material, location, and size.

The player decides they want to break the object. Do you let them do so? And how do you do it? What is the limit? Does it depend on context or as long as the object doesn't say its unbreakable, they can break it?

As with any action declaration, I consider the following: 1) Is the character positioned within the fiction to accomplish their goal by the means described by the player? and 2) Is the action something characters might do in the genre of fiction that forms part of the game’s premise? If the answer is no to either question, then a conversation needs to happen to get everyone on the same page about what’s going on the fiction, what the genre expectations are, or both. If, on the other hand, the answer to both questions is yes, then either the goal is accomplished if there’s nothing at stake and no consequence for failure, or a roll will determine the outcome.

 

[R_J_K75]

It comes down to common sense, Why over complicate things. I'd put this into three categories. easily breakable and there is no roll needed. The second is its possible to be broken, dice roll required. Lastly, no dice roll allowed as its beyond the characters ability at this point.

 

[Asisreo]

I don’t understand what you mean about the player not trying to be cool, not sure what that has to do with anything. If their goal isn’t what they said, why didn’t they just say what their actual goal was?

I think players, especially newer players, will assume their intentions are clear when they declare their action but don't realize that they've added something extra that the DM might interpret too literally.

Like if a player is trying to attack the castle gate, the DM probably has good reason to assume that what they're doing is breaking down the gate. But the details between the line leave some other interpretations open, like the player might want to just draw attention to themselves or trying to be random to confuse the guards.