D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Helldritch]

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.

Why would a magical bow prevent those shenanigans? I am curious to hear that one.

 

[Flamestrike]

After some research, I have found a Crawford tweet that should settle the debate on whether or not a held/worn item can be attacked. The big man himself says that worn/held objects can, by default, be targeted with anything that can target an object, including attacks. Specific exceptions (such as fireball) exist, but are not the general rule.

 

[Esker]

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

Yes, and the DM determines their AC, HP, and resistances and immunities. It's non-functional for a "laboratory" simulation. No DM in their right mind is going to have held objects use the "suggested" values for tiny objects in the DMG table.

But let's set that aside.

I pull out another hand-crossbow from my bag with my object interaction, and make five attacks using action surge and my bonus action from crossbow expert. Using SS I have -5/+10, giving me 25% to hit, doing 16.5 damage per hit. Spamming precision attack adds 4.5 to each attack roll that misses. Three attacks hit, doing 49.5 damage. You're dead.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

I would think monsters have better things to do with their attacks than waste turns trying to break the gear of PCs trying to kill them.

If a DM had his monsters repeatedly just attack gear, while the PCs cut them down left right and centre, that DM should never DM again. It's the most ridiculous metagaming adversarial DMing I can imagine.

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

Err nope. Read that again:

''A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried. ''

The spell ONLY sets an object on fire if it isnt being worn or carried. If the spell was not intended to target objects that are being worn or carried, why bother with this line of text at all?

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, and the DM determines their AC, HP, and resistances and immunities. It's non-functional for a "laboratory" simulation. No DM in their right mind is going to have held objects use the "suggested" values for tiny objects in the DMG table.

The table is in the PHB. For the third time.

I pull out another hand-crossbow from my bag

You only had the one. I broke it remember. And your bow.

No ret-conning extra bows now I've had my turn.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would think monsters have better things to do with their attacks than waste turns trying to break the gear of PCs trying to kill them.

If a DM had his monsters repeatedly just attack gear, while the PCs cut them down left right and centre, that DM should never DM again. It's the most ridiculous metagaming adversarial DMing I can imagine.

No, the monster's do not have better things to do with their attacks. You have proven yourself that the most effective way to neutralise a fighter is to destroy their weapons by attacking them in their hands. And that will mean the PCs won't be cutting them down left, right and centre because they will have nothing to cut with. If a monk can think of that I'm sure any monster with an intelligence of 8 or more can think of it too. As for metagaming, it would be metagaming the monsters not to use such an effective tactic if the players where allowed to.

Err nope. Read that again:

''A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried. ''

The spell ONLY sets an object on fire if it isnt being worn or carried. If the spell was not intended to target objects that are being worn or carried, why bother with this line of text at all?

Then I target the bow string. How many hp has that got? If I can target a held object, then it follows that I can just as easily target a part of an object.

 

[Helldritch]

Thank for sharing this
(The JC tweet about attacking object did not get quoted) Bug?
I'd still rule that it should not be that easy though.

Yes, and the DM determines their AC, HP, and resistances and immunities. It's non-functional for a "laboratory" simulation. No DM in their right mind is going to have held objects use the "suggested" values for tiny objects in the DMG table.

But let's set that aside.

I pull out another hand-crossbow from my bag with my object interaction, and make five attacks using action surge and my bonus action from crossbow expert. Using SS I have -5/+10, giving me 25% to hit, doing 16.5 damage per hit. Spamming precision attack adds 4.5 to each attack roll that misses. Three attacks hit, doing 49.5 damage. You're dead.

You forgot deflect missile. One of your bolts practically do no damage (1 pts) because deflect missile reduces damage by an average of 15 points at level 5. This leaves the monk pretty much alive.

The table is in the PHB. For the third time.

You only had the one. I broke it remember. And your bow.

No ret-conning extra bows now I've had my turn.

Players often have two hand crossbows. But you're still alive as I said above and very close to death. So?

Added: (The JC tweet about attacking object did not get quoted) Bug?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The table is in the PHB. For the third time.



You only had the one. I broke it remember. And your bow.

No ret-conning extra bows now I've had my turn.

If weapons can be targeted, then the player will know that weapons can be targeted. So they will be carrying spares. Not just one spare, but dozens of spares.

No ret-conning your opponent into an idiot.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

Buy spares, easy.

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

You can target people's clothes. Just don't be a perv about it.

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

Firebolt can't set carried objects on fire.

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

Yeah, honestly. Unless the creature knows what you're trying to do, there shouldn't be any change in either AC or disadvantage unless you want to stray from the rules.

 

[Flamestrike]

Using SS I have -5/+10, giving me 25% to hit, doing 16.5 damage per hit. Spamming precision attack adds 4.5 to each attack roll that misses. Three attacks hit, doing 49.5 damage.

You're forgetting I reduced the damage by 14.5 (Im a Monk remember - Deflect arrows).

And I'm pretty sure that's only 2 hits at +8 (minus 5, plus 4.5) or +7.5 vs AC 19 with 5 attacks. Its less than a 50 percent chance to hit with 5 attacks (so less than 2.5 hits from 5 attacks).

Not sure why you're rounding up to 3 hits there.

So two hits, is 33 damage, reduced by 14 (ill round down too) to 19 damage.