D&D 5E Objects: AC vs Hardness

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone.

I was looking over the rules for damaging objects in the DMG, and I find myself missing hardness and size penalties and other things from 3E. Simply giving objects an AC based on their construction material seems strange. It's simplified, especially since size has little to do with AC anymore (except that big things often have lower Dex). How do you like how this works out? Do you miss Hardness and size AC bonuses and other things from 3E? Or do you prefer 5E's simplified ways?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Speaking personally, in the four campaigns I have run or am running, I have not had a single event occur that involved PCs attacking objects. So if my experience is in any way similar to other people... having more complicated Hardness rules than just an object AC is not required. Obviously for those who have it occur more often, having more intricate rules would probably make for more interesting results (both mechanically and story-wise). But if many DMs fall into the camp I am in... it's one of those places where WotC probably figured the barest simplicity of rules were necessary just so there was "something" to use when it eventually came up, but nothing more than that was required (and thus saving DMG page space.) And for those that want more... they can find/build/adapt it themselves as needed.

 

[thethain]

Damage Threshold
Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal. Any damage that fails to meet or exceed the object's damage threshold is considered superficial and doesn't reduce the object's hit points.

You can still apply Damage Threshold, resistance or immunity to types of damage as makes sense. Also swords are really not designed to say, break down a door. And it is logical to restrict players hoping to accomplish such a thing if their time is limited.

 

[jaelis]

Usually I would just rule that the party can either break something or not.

I could only see the combat stats of an item coming up if they are trying to break it as part of a separate combat for some reason. Like DEFCON, I've simply never had that come up since the days of sundering in 3e.

 

[Yunru]

I base AC on material make and HP on object size/fragility/etc.

 

[Shiroiken]

Simple is good. As for size affecting the HP of an object, I suppose it depends on how you are looking at a "destroyed" item. Is it completely destroyed or just damaged to the point of uselessness? For most objects, you only need to damage it to the useless stage, and size isn't going to make that much of a difference (if so, it should be reflected in HP).

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the idea is that the DM is given the freedom to simply say "no matter how hard you try, your sword will never wear down this stone wall"



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

I think the idea is that the DM is given the freedom to simply say "no matter how hard you try, your sword will never wear down this stone wall"



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Andy Dufresne proves you wrong.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Andy Dufresne proves you wrong.

To be fair, Andy used a rock hammer, not a sword.

 

[Horwath]

To be fair, Andy used a rock hammer, not a sword.

Yeah, a 1 ounce hammer