D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Paul Farquhar]

If a monk can attack and break weapons, then the guy with the sword can to. Which means he can cut the monk's fists off.

 

[Asisreo]

Dear @Flamestrike. Take time to watch this.


Your are right that even in real life you can attack the weapon of an opponent. But it is not as easy as the rules in 5ed seems to indicate.
1) I would give you disadvantage for this or you could attack normaly and you would grant advantage to your opponent. It would be your choice.
2) You should require something as hard or harder than the material you are attacking. Otherwise, I would probably give resistance or immunity to the object. This would be in accordance to P. 247 where the DM is entitled to give objects immunity to certain attack/damage type/source.
3) I might also be tempted to give the wielded object a save for half damage with a DC equal to the actual damage dealt. Weapons are afterall, used to parry other weapons and they do not usually break because of that.
4) You would be forced to attack the wielder's AC or the object's AC, whichever is higher.

I'd just rule weapons with a long slab of metal like a sword is resistant to all but bludgeoning and weapons with a shaft like a spear is resistant to all but slashing.

 

[Esker]

I'm still waiting to see what that Sharpshooter/ Crossbow expert BM Fighter whose bows I snapped in round 1 is going to do to me with his Short sword.

The problem is that allowing attacks to target held weapons using the AC and HP values for tiny objects in the DMG creates a completely degenerate game. PCs are much more likely to be using weapons on average than monsters are, and so once you start allowing this, it renders weapon-using PCs essentially non-functional, and any party that relies on any weapon-using classes will meet a TPK as soon as they encounter monsters that use natural weapons. Therefore, either the DM will shut that down before it starts, or they won't and the PCs are dead.

So no, I'm not going to play out this scenario. Or, I suppose if you insist, then since I get to have any non-magical gear I want, I'll just have 10 hand crossbows stashed in my bag, which costs as much as the difference between half-plate and plate, since any PC in a world where weapons are this fragile would do that. If you want to go through a non-degenerate simulation, I'm still up for it, but let's actually do it somewhere we can involve dice rolls and make it a best 2 of 3 so we don't have to make assumptions about what happens on each turn.

 

[Asisreo]

If a monk can attack and break weapons, then the guy with the sword can to. Which means he can cut the monk's fists off.

Fists aren't weapons. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Helldritch]

Yup. I'm fine with monks, but attacking a wielded weapon to damage it is not something I would allow as DM, or expect a DM to allow. Otherwise you have to explain why all those archers hit by a fireball haven't had their bows and arrows burned to ash.

@Flamestrike is right that he should be able to attack a weapon. It is in the PHB. But it should not be without risks and it is not as easy as he makes it sound. But I would allow it. With what I have written in my previous post.

 

[Flamestrike]

The problem is that allowing attacks to target held weapons using the AC and HP values for tiny objects in the DMG creates a completely degenerate game.

It's in the PHB. It's literally a core rule, not an optional one.

And it's one that JC confirmed is to be applied to attended (held and carried) objects as well as non attended ones.

So no, I'm not going to play out this scenario.

Fighter gets disarmed, and takes bat and ball and goes home.

Nice.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

@Flamestrike is right that he should be able to attack a weapon. It is in the PHB. But it should not be without risks and it is not as easy as he makes it sound. But I would allow it. With what I have written in my previous post.

Firebolt can target objects. It can also set flammable ones on fire. So Wizards destroy bows. Once you start allowing that sort of thing the whole game degenerates into a fiddly mess.

And it certainly isn't an ability unique to monks, so say saying "but haha my monk can do this" is silly. If the monk can do it anyone can.

 

[Flamestrike]

If a monk can attack and break weapons, then the guy with the sword can to. Which means he can cut the monk's fists off.

Fists are not objects which have their own HP and AC. You would be targeting a creature which as its own HP and AC.

Look at disintegrate which specifically targets objects and creatures.

Are we banning that spell?

Look at eldritch blast which does not allow the targeting of objects (creatures only).

Now look at weapon attacks. They expressly allow the targeting of objects.

If I can target an object with an attack, I can target one you're holding.

 

[Flamestrike]

Firebolt can target objects. It can also set flammable ones on fire. So Wizards destroy bows.

Awesome.

Why shouldn't this be allowed?

He can target it on the ground if its disarmed, but not when it's being held?

Why?

In order to destroy a Bow you have to hit it (AC 15) and destroy it (10 HP). A creature trying to stop you (like the guy holding it), likely imposes disadvantage on your attack roll.

A magical bow instantly stops those shenanigans, and a non magic bow is easily fixed with the Mending cantrip.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Awesome.

Why shouldn't this be allowed?

As pointed out earlier, because it would be used against the PCs, and they would never make it out of the fist dungeon. PCs need weapons (and armour, and clothes). Monsters don't.

He can target it on the ground if its disarmed, but not when it's being held?

Why?

The same reason you can't target someone's clothes - narrative necessity.

In order to destroy a Bow you have to hit it (AC 15) and destroy it (10 HP).

Don't need to destroy it. Firebolt sets it on fire. You going to use a burning bow?

A creature trying to stop you (like the guy holding it), likely imposes disadvantage on your attack roll.

Nothing in the rules for that. You can't insist on allowing the most impractical interpretation of RAW and then invoke "common sense"!