Attacking Swords to Permanently disarm people.

[Lupine]

So. Object DCs, and Object Health. Hypothetically, could a monk punch someone's blade and break it?

How would you create rules to do this?

[Unoriginal]

So. Object DCs, and Object Health. Hypothetically, could a monk punch someone's blade and break it?

How would you create rules to do this?

There's no need to create rules, they're already in the DMG.

If a Monk can attenpt to break a sword bare-handed is up to the DM, though. I personally have no problem with it, given what a Monk's unarmed attacks can do, but some DMs might disagree.

Aside from that, it's an attack roll against an AC depending on the sword's size, and its HPs depend on its size and the hardness of the material it's made from.

[chando]

Hypothetically, yes. The thing is, just because there are rules for objects sizes, AC and HP, does not mean that you could just attack an object to destroy it, especially for a object currently in use. thats where 'ruling' fo the DM enter in play. The disarm rules might be more appropriate for the situation, then attack the innanimate object lying on the ground with your other attacks. Alternativelly, the DM could rule that you could attack the enemy regular AC, dealing damage to the object instead of the enemy. I would not be surprised if the DM imposed disvantage on those attacks (that might be counterred by any advantage like any other), especially on the case of smart/welltrained enemies that reconize your intent, at least past a initial strike. That meas that might take multiple attempts and not always be a great strategy. Sometimes it might be worth it, sometimes not. And that would be ok, as having one strategy that works always on everybody and just pressing that button to 'win' instead of finding creative e fun ways to play the game might be not the most desired obective.

[Tiadoppler]

There's no need to create rules, they're already in the DMG.

If a Monk can attenpt to break a sword bare-handed is up to the DM, though. I personally have no problem with it, given what a Monk's unarmed attacks can do, but some DMs might disagree.

Aside from that, it's an attack roll against an AC depending on the sword's size, and its HPs depend on its size and the hardness of the material it's made from.

The object rules on page 246 of the DMG seem to focus on unattended objects (e.g. you pick a sword off the ground and attempt to break it). It's even stated that the AC of an object is based solely on the material because those stats assume the object has no chance of dodging out of the way. An equipped object, especially a weapon held by an enemy, should not have the same chance of being hit as an immobile object.

I'd suggest starting with the stats in the DMG (An unattended non-magical steel sword has AC 19 and 10 HP), and then using some of the wielder's stats to increase the AC as appropriate.

Let's say a sword (AC 19, 10 HP) is held by a guard (DEX +2). I would increase the sword's AC by the wielder's Dexterity modifier, resulting in an AC of 21. I might also rule that the sword has a Damage Threshold of 3-5 because of the hardness of a piece of steel.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In 3.5, to sunder a weapon you had to win an opposed attack roll, which I think is a kind of neat way of handling things. If you want to keep it simple, though, "make an attack roll at disadvantage; if you hit, you damage the object in question" is probably sufficient.

[Vogie]

In 3.5, to sunder a weapon you had to win an opposed attack roll, which I think is a kind of neat way of handling things. If you want to keep it simple, though, "make an attack roll at disadvantage; if you hit, you damage the object in question" is probably sufficient.

That's a good idea. To be fair, "make an attack roll with disadvantage" is the closest we have in 5e to create any type of called shot. That or the Sharpshooter-esque -5 to hit.

[Mith]

I like the idea of adding wielder attack bonus to the object in question (reflects skill and reflexes). Perhaps have weapons of a certain hardness have a DR like HAM (1d4) to physical attacks. So you likely are not going to sunder with a dagger, but a STR 20 strike with an axe could do the trick.

I would also say that "sunder" is less "clean through" and more "unusable".

The question I have is: should such a feat impact the attacker's weapon?

[Doug Lampert]

The object rules on page 246 of the DMG seem to focus on unattended objects (e.g. you pick a sword off the ground and attempt to break it). It's even stated that the AC of an object is based solely on the material because those stats assume the object has no chance of dodging out of the way. An equipped object, especially a weapon held by an enemy, should not have the same chance of being hit as an immobile object.

I'd suggest starting with the stats in the DMG (An unattended non-magical steel sword has AC 19 and 10 HP), and then using some of the wielder's stats to increase the AC as appropriate.

Let's say a sword (AC 19, 10 HP) is held by a guard (DEX +2). I would increase the sword's AC by the wielder's Dexterity modifier, resulting in an AC of 21. I might also rule that the sword has a Damage Threshold of 3-5 because of the hardness of a piece of steel.

If you're going to modify the object's AC that way, then proficiency should absolutely apply. Using a weapon so you don't break it is part of training with the weapon.

In any case, I'd be very reluctant to add this to the game as a general rule without careful thought. If a monk can break his foe's sword, then so can a dragon. If you can attack a sword in use (which is fairly tough), then a spell-casting focus should be trivial to attack.

Following that logic another step: a sword is TOUGHER than the monk's hand/forearm. If he can use his hand to break my sword with a single attack against a fixed HP total that is based only on the material being hit, then why can't I use my sword to cut off his hand with a single attack the same way? It's just meat and bone.

Oh, yeah, HP don't just represent meat. I don't get to just cut his hand off like it was a hunk of dead flesh and I'm a butcher. I have to get past his trained defenses, which include his HP. Now, why does that apply to a bare hand, but not to a long sharpened piece of high quality steel held in that hand?

[darknite]

So can my fighter make a strike to break a monk's fists? It's only fair and far more probable.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So can my fighter make a strike to break a monk's fists? It's only fair and far more probable.
No-- "you can't be disarmed" is kind of the point of unarmed strikes.

[stoutstien]

Could always use order domain channel and someone else have shatter ready

[Tiadoppler]

If you're going to modify the object's AC that way, then proficiency should absolutely apply. Using a weapon so you don't break it is part of training with the weapon.

In any case, I'd be very reluctant to add this to the game as a general rule without careful thought. If a monk can break his foe's sword, then so can a dragon. If you can attack a sword in use (which is fairly tough), then a spell-casting focus should be trivial to attack.

Following that logic another step: a sword is TOUGHER than the monk's hand/forearm. If he can use his hand to break my sword with a single attack against a fixed HP total that is based only on the material being hit, then why can't I use my sword to cut off his hand with a single attack the same way? It's just meat and bone.

Oh, yeah, HP don't just represent meat. I don't get to just cut his hand off like it was a hunk of dead flesh and I'm a butcher. I have to get past his trained defenses, which include his HP. Now, why does that apply to a bare hand, but not to a long sharpened piece of high quality steel held in that hand?

I agree with your point about proficiency.

Personally, I wouldn't add this rule (or a similar one) to a game I was DMing, unless there was a lot of player buy-in. The possibility of breaking weapons regularly and carrying backup weapons is great for verisimilitude in a 'hardcore realism' campaign, but might distract or annoy players expecting more 'heroic fantasy'. Anyway, trying to do specific attacks with this level of detail or granularity isn't exactly what 5e's combat system excels at.


Minor quibble: is a non-magical sword tougher than a monk's fist? In early levels, sure, but monks are all about making their bodies 'magical' through ki. By level 10 or 15, I'd argue that a monk's fist should be considered tougher than steel or stone.

[Unoriginal]

Breaking a Monk's fist just means they'll beat you up with their forearms.

[JNAProductions]

I'd rule it like this:


Make an attack roll with disadvantage. If you hit, you hit the equipment in question and deal damage to it normally. If you miss, but the higher die would've hit, you may hit the enemy normally.

This cannot be done when you have disadvantage from another source.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I'd consider a sword resistant to piercing and bludgeoning. Otherwise, its' not a well made sword.

[PhantomSoul]

I'd consider a sword resistant to piercing and bludgeoning. Otherwise, its' not a well made sword.

And parrying is pretty basic for swords, so breaking from slashing would be pretty bad...

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd rule it like this:

I'd be careful with how that's worded. With those mechanics, someone would roll "Disadvantage", but still would be able to hit the enemy if one of the two dice was a hit.

That's effective "Advantage, but two successes means you can instead hit a weapon".


You're on the right track, though.

Maybe something like this?


When you hit an enemy, you can attempt to instead hit an item the target is wearing/wielding by spending your Bonus Action. Make another attack roll against the enemy.

If you hit, your damage is instead dealt to the item. Otherwise, you hit the target as normal.

This way, it requires a normal hit against the target, in order to hit them, and then the attacker can attempt to sunder after they've guaranteed their hit.

[qube]

I'd rule against it. Disarming is a battlemaster manouvre. No need to steal spotlight from them.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd rule against it. Disarming is a battlemaster manouvre. No need to steal spotlight from them.

But everyone can shove, and Trip Attack is one of the most popular Battle Master maneuvers.

[JNAProductions]

I'd be careful with how that's worded. With those mechanics, someone would roll "Disadvantage", but still would be able to hit the enemy if one of the two dice was a hit.

That's effective "Advantage, but two successes means you can instead hit a weapon".


You're on the right track, though.

Maybe something like this?



This way, it requires a normal hit against the target, in order to hit them, and then the attacker can attempt to sunder after they've guaranteed their hit.

Excellent point.

[Willie the Duck]

In 3.5, to sunder a weapon you had to win an opposed attack roll, which I think is a kind of neat way of handling things. If you want to keep it simple, though, "make an attack roll at disadvantage; if you hit, you damage the object in question" is probably sufficient.

I am not regularly playing 3e, but I recall it not being popular. A combination of 'when would this be preferable to taking down the opponent?,' 'you're actively destroying your treasure reward,' and, 'the DM can play that game to, hope you weren't attached to your shiny new magic sword.' Am I misremembering that?


So can my fighter make a strike to break a monk's fists? It's only fair and far more probable.

Sure, their total hp plus 3 death saves and their fists are broken.

I won't touch fair (especially given how not-overpowered unarmed builds are in 5e), but probable-- yeah, people want to be able to play martial artists in a world full of people who can carry weapons at most times. There isn't a solution which is 100% realistic.

[Vogie]

Breaking a Monk's fist just means they'll beat you up with their forearms.

And feet, and knees, and elbows. Maybe a headbutt or two.

"Come back here and take what's coming to ya! I'll bite your legs off!"


I'd consider a sword resistant to piercing and bludgeoning. Otherwise, its' not a well made sword.

I would say it'd be resistant to piercing and slashing. Everything can get smashed with a big enough hammer.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I am not regularly playing 3e, but I recall it not being popular. A combination of 'when would this be preferable to taking down the opponent?,' 'you're actively destroying your treasure reward,' and, 'the DM can play that game to, hope you weren't attached to your shiny new magic sword.' Am I misremembering that?
No, you're right-- sunder was a bad idea in 3e, and it would still be pretty unfair to start doing it to magic items. But back then magic items were an integral part of character scaling-- past a certain (relatively low-level) point, any NPC threatening enough to be worth special maneuvers would almost have to have magic items. In 5e, you can by level 20 and still be dealing with dangerous foes using mundane gear.

[MaxWilson]

So. Object DCs, and Object Health. Hypothetically, could a monk punch someone's blade and break it?

How would you create rules to do this?

The rule I use is "objects that are being wielded, or attuned objects being worn by creatures still above 0 HP, cannot be destroyed until the creature is at 0 HP." So you'd have to Disarm the opponent first with DMG disarm rules, and then attack the sword (swords are strong but brittle, as I understand it, so it would probably be something like 6 HP with a damage threshold of 7--I rule that there is no attack roll vs. AC contest for objects in melee range, only damage roll - damage threshold). In practice this means that the monk knocks the sword out of his enemy's hand and then snaps it over his knee (or whatever), at a total cost of probably 3-4 attacks (Extra Attack + Martial Arts or maybe Flurry).

Magical weapons would get +2 to damage threshold per rarity level, so a +3 sword would have a damage threshold of 13 and a vorpal sword would have a threshold of 15.

Those are my hypothetical off-the-cuff rulings based on my rules, use them if you want to.

P.S. In practice what I really see is PCs just Disarming enemies and then taking the weapons, tossing them away, or grappling the enemy. So I'm not surprised that weapon destruction hasn't ever come up at the table--once you've Disarmed the enemy the job is 80% done already unless you're fighting a whole ton of enemies all with awesome weapons.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I would say it'd be resistant to piercing and slashing. Everything can get smashed with a big enough hammer.

True, but the "big enough hammer" is overcoming the resistance. A hammer forged sword is used to hammers of ordinary size, and beating a sword that lays on the ground... But I wouldn't offer resistance to a rapier in any case.

Slashing is something that can cause a blade to shatter. Piercing, eh, maybe shouldn't be resistant to it, perhaps even immune due to most sword's springy nature.

[No brains]

From a realism angle: Weapons are usually hard things that can absorb shock not only because of their construction, but because they're being held in people's arms. A sword is built with the plan that it's not going to break in 1 fight and even a weapon with a haft is expected to break often. Realistically, the only way a weapon would be breakable is if its maintenance were neglected and it was in a sorry state after weeks. If the players have access to maintenance tools, weapons would kind of be able to short/ long rest with them. A weapon is more likely to die from some equivalent of exhaustion than damage in a fight.

From a fun angle: First, ignore the realism angle, then consider that this adds a complicated layer and introduces precedent for taking away magic toys. Not only do the players have to contend with their weapons being broken, they also have to worry about potentially destroying stuff they may want to take. I feel like sundering weapons adds a layer that will slow down fights and take away from smash and grab fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

If realism is something that we're considering, it's important to note that swordsmen never clashed edge-to-edge like you see in the movies. The only thing you wanted your edge to hit was your enemy, because otherwise you'd ruin your blade or you'd get it caught in a very inopportune moment.

Even a tough sword can suffer this kind of damage. Perhaps that should be the best way of narrating a sunder-like effect: Not a complete destruction, but rather rendering the item useless for its intended use.

Maces, similarly, were designed to actually bounce against hard objects. It's hard to do that if the mace is bent.



So maybe a Sunder effect doesn't completely destroy an item, but rather converts it into something less. Like an Improvised Weapon.

[qube]

But everyone can shove, and Trip Attack is one of the most popular Battle Master maneuvers.yes - though how exactly you consider this an argument for stealing spotlight from the battlemaster, I don't quite get.

Not only are there some leaps of logic
just because some parts of the class aren't unique, doesn't mean it's inherently a good reason to just make everything generic
after all - everyone can heal (ex. a healing kit), so we should all be able to call for divine intervention ... :smallconfused:

if anything, it would be all the more reason NOT to do it
the more is "stolen", the more important it is to saveguard the rest
if everyone can heal ... perhaps we should still give the cleric something unique :smallredface:

[Bloodcloud]

So can my fighter make a strike to break a monk's fists? It's only fair and far more probable.

Just a flesh wound! Come closer I'll bite your leg off!

[Spiritchaser]

I would generally not allow a weapon in someone’s control to be damaged. If you want to break it? Disarm them. Take command or suggestion or three levels of fighter... or whatever.

Then attack the weapon.

I wouldn’t feel right making it at all easy for foes to break the weapons of my players, and what goes around comes around, or rather, what doesn’t go around doesn’t come around.

[TyGuy]

I'd rule against it. Disarming is a battlemaster manouvre. No need to steal spotlight from them.

I've thought about martials being able to do more with their attacks and this was my first concern.

If any martial can disarm, then why take the maneuver? If any martial can attack the eyes and blind an opponent, then why prepare blindness/ deafness?

On one hand it's more realistic to tactically cripple the enemy as a martial. On the other, you'll step on the toes of other game mechanics.

I think the sweet spot is where any martial can try to blind an opponent, or attack their weapon, etc. But it's so prohibitively unlikely to succeed that they'll only every try to attempt it in moments of desperation.

[Bloodcloud]

Sunder was in dnd 3.X, and yeah, it was not great. I would absolutely avoid getting into this as much as possible. It's really unfun for your fighter to get his sword broken in the middle of a fight. If it's too easy, then suddenly it's a sort of instakill for enemies with weapons. If it's too hard it is useless - better just chop the enemy. If becoming good at it requires too many ressources, then you got a build that steamroll enemies with weapon but is useless otherwise.

So yeah, unless you have a player who absolutely is into it, don't.

[MaxWilson]

I've thought about martials being able to do more with their attacks and this was my first concern.

If any martial can disarm, then why take the maneuver? If any martial can attack the eyes and blind an opponent, then why prepare blindness/ deafness?

Let's look at the published material from WotC and see if there are any answers.

Comparing DMG Disarm (usable by any PC) to Battlemaster Disarm, or Shove to Battlemaster Trip, we see three differences:

(1) Normal PCs have to make a choice between Disarming/Shoving and doing damage. Battlemasters get to do both at the same time, with bonus damage.

(2) Battlemasters abilities target saving throws, not ability checks. (This is generally a disadvantage for the Battlemaster BTW, but against large foes wielding two-handed weapons the Battlemaster can wind up with a better chance of success.)

(3) Battlemasters have fewer restrictions on when they can use these abilities, e.g. can Trip with an arrow or an opportunity attack.

If you're making up custom maneuvers, you should consider following this same model: make sure that a build specialization like Battlemaster has some kind of inherent advantage at the maneuver, but the maneuver should still be usable in some form by anybody.

=====================================


From a realism angle: Weapons are usually hard things that can absorb shock not only because of their construction, but because they're being held in people's arms. A sword is built with the plan that it's not going to break in 1 fight and even a weapon with a haft is expected to break often. Realistically, the only way a weapon would be breakable is if its maintenance were neglected and it was in a sorry state after weeks. If the players have access to maintenance tools, weapons would kind of be able to short/ long rest with them. A weapon is more likely to die from some equivalent of exhaustion than damage in a fight.

From a fun angle: First, ignore the realism angle, then consider that this adds a complicated layer and introduces precedent for taking away magic toys. Not only do the players have to contend with their weapons being broken, they also have to worry about potentially destroying stuff they may want to take. I feel like sundering weapons adds a layer that will slow down fights and take away from smash and grab fun.

Consider the converse: if magic items can be taken away instead of endlessly accumulating, the DM can be more generous about giving them out, and the decision whether to take some or all of your magic items on a risky venture becomes more dramatically interesting. Should I really take my Oathbow and my Shortbow +2 on the same adventure into the Pit of Despair even though I can only use one at a time, or do I want to minimize risk by leaving one of them at home? Do I take all three of my healing potions and Potions of Fire Giant Strength, or just enough to get the job done? This in turn makes the adventure potentially more interesting because logistics plays a bigger role.

[darknite]

No-- "you can't be disarmed" is kind of the point of unarmed strikes.

The rules don't say that. In any case, edgy 'I sunder everyone's weapons' moves are not the point of D&D combat. If they are, then rules for breaking a every bone in a monk's body should be on the table, too.

[Kyutaru]

Just let the sunders happen while excluding magic items. Every story out there about some magic blade that shatters does so under pretty extreme conditions. And then it's not a simple short rest of maintenance to fix it again. You need to walk seven hundred leagues to Mount Doom and forge it in the flames of Gehenna from whence it was born. A broken magic item may even be coveted or kept as a family heirloom for generations until the prophecy when it would be remade comes at last. Heck, some JRPGs made you go find a meteorite crystal that was not of this world. And can we just acknowledge how messed up the rarity of the ingredients are in Kingdom Hearts?

I say allow the Sunder moves as usual and limit them to normal weapons. If you can think of a way or enemy that might cause such a powerful artifact to shatter into a billion pieces then go for it and turn it into the focus of the next campaign.

[Man_Over_Game]

yes - though how exactly you consider this an argument for stealing spotlight from the battlemaster, I don't quite get.

Not only are there some leaps of logic
just because some parts of the class aren't unique, doesn't mean it's inherently a good reason to just make everything generic
after all - everyone can heal (ex. a healing kit), so we should all be able to call for divine intervention ... :smallconfused:

if anything, it would be all the more reason NOT to do it
the more is "stolen", the more important it is to saveguard the rest
if everyone can heal ... perhaps we should still give the cleric something unique :smallredface:



Let's look at the published material from WotC and see if there are any answers.

Comparing DMG Disarm (usable by any PC) to Battlemaster Disarm, or Shove to Battlemaster Trip, we see three differences:

(1) Normal PCs have to make a choice between Disarming/Shoving and doing damage. Battlemasters get to do both at the same time, with bonus damage.

(2) Battlemasters abilities target saving throws, not ability checks. (This is generally a disadvantage for the Battlemaster BTW, but against large foes wielding two-handed weapons the Battlemaster can wind up with a better chance of success.)

(3) Battlemasters have fewer restrictions on when they can use these abilities, e.g. can Trip with an arrow or an opportunity attack.

If you're making up custom maneuvers, you should consider following this same model: make sure that a build specialization like Battlemaster has some kind of inherent advantage at the maneuver, but the maneuver should still be usable in some form by anybody.

=====================================



Consider the converse: if magic items can be taken away instead of endlessly accumulating, the DM can be more generous about giving them out, and the decision whether to take some or all of your magic items on a risky venture becomes more dramatically interesting. Should I really take my Oathbow and my Shortbow +2 on the same adventure into the Pit of Despair even though I can only use one at a time, or do I want to minimize risk by leaving one of them at home? Do I take all three of my healing potions and Potions of Fire Giant Strength, or just enough to get the job done? This in turn makes the adventure potentially more interesting because logistics plays a bigger role.

Wilson's got the right idea. To address qube's concern directly, the game has lots of mechanics that become more readily available through features. The Battle Master's main gimmick is doing what a lot of other people can do, just better.

Look at the Thief. It doesn't really add anything new. You can climb a little bit faster, and you can use objects with a Bonus Action. But anyone can climb at 50% speed, and anyone can use an object with an Action.

Or look at the Shield Master feat. Its primary feature is simply to Shove someone as a Bonus Action. Consider how the Dream Druid's level 3 feature is valuable in comparison to all the other Druids who need to prepare Healing Word (so the Dream Druid can now cast a different spell or save spell slots when other Druids could only cast a cantrip).

Convenience is valid as a feature. In that sense, the Battle Master is more convenient than anyone else when attempting to disarm someone.

[Rukelnikov]

The rules don't say that. In any case, edgy 'I sunder everyone's weapons' moves are not the point of D&D combat. If they are, then rules for breaking a every bone in a monk's body should be on the table, too.

Monks are creatures, you can break their bones as with any other creature, some rules for this are in page 272 of the DMG.

[Unoriginal]

If any martial can disarm, then why take the maneuver?

EVERYONE can disarm. The Battlemaster can just do it far more easily with the manoeuvre.


Just let the sunders happen while excluding magic items. Every story out there about some magic blade that shatters does so under pretty extreme conditions.

Those extreme conditions can be "get hit by a very powerful enemy", though.

Magical items are already more resistant than normal ones. There's no need to add a "magic items can't be broken close".

In fact, being indestructible is a minor propriety of some magic item. It'd be sad to remove this capacity from them.

[Vogie]

The rules don't say that. In any case, edgy 'I sunder everyone's weapons' moves are not the point of D&D combat. If they are, then rules for breaking a every bone in a monk's body should be on the table, too.

Since we're hooting and hollering about the Battlemaster, It's worth noting that the weapon bond feature of the Eldritch Knight states that they can't be disarmed unless incapacitated.

If no one can disarm anyone, that'd be a completely useless feature. However, since there ARE rules for disarming and unarmed attacks (good ol' 1+STR!) it should be something that comes into play.

Anyone can substitute a physical attack's damage for a disarm contest. Battlemasters have the ability to do both damage AND disarm the target. In fact, depending on your campaign, it could be the first thing that the enemy does - I'm DMing a campaign in Waterdeep, and I decided early on that, due to the rule of law there, if the players tried to scrap with the City Guards, City Watch, and WOMP, the first tactic that the police would attempt is to disarm them.

If you really want to start breaking bones, maybe check out the gritty realism and UA Vitality rules.

[Kyutaru]

Those extreme conditions can be "get hit by a very powerful enemy", though.

Magical items are already more resistant than normal ones. There's no need to add a "magic items can't be broken close".

In fact, being indestructible is a minor propriety of some magic item. It'd be sad to remove this capacity from them.

Well DMG says:

Most magic items are objects of extraordinary craftsmanship. Thanks to a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement, a magic item is at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage. Artifacts are practically indestructible, requiring extraordinary measures to destroy.

So it already thinks artifacts are too hard to destroy except by freakish measures. Magic items have resistance to all damage but that doesn't make them very strong. High level wizards throw around tons of magical damage that can effortlessly disarm enemies with a touch. I think classifying normal magic items as +1 and artifacts as your legendary stuff is reasonable. But the better magic items in between need to be more durable.

[Unoriginal]

High level wizards throw around tons of magical damage that can effortlessly disarm enemies with a touch.

What are you talking about? No, wizards aren't particularly good at that.

Also resistance to all damage means to magic damage too.


But the better magic items in between need to be more durable.

Why would they need that?

[Kyutaru]

Why would they need that?

Gradient. Going from "any ogre can snap this in half" to "requires the power of a god to destroy" is a leap.


What are you talking about? No, wizards aren't particularly good at that.

Also resistance to all damage means to magic damage too.

I know, but wizard damage scales with spell power. An augmented Acid Arrow can blast something for 11d4 acid damage plus another 9d4 acid damage the turn after. A bit of a waste of such a spell slot but more than capable of destroying virtually any non-artifact with ease.

[MaxWilson]

Anyone can substitute a physical attack's damage for a disarm contest. Battlemasters have the ability to do both damage AND disarm the target. In fact, depending on your campaign, it could be the first thing that the enemy does - I'm DMing a campaign in Waterdeep, and I decided early on that, due to the rule of law there, if the players tried to scrap with the City Guards, City Watch, and WOMP, the first tactic that the police would attempt is to disarm them.

Disarming is a really good strategy against Gloomweavers, Githyanki Knights, most giants, drow, and some demons. Basically any MM stat block that has a powerful weapon attack but no powerful unarmed attack. It can reduce the damage you take against a monster by 90%+ in some cases.

[mephnick]

On a side note, does anyone else think making someone roll an attack roll to break a stationary object is really dumb?

I just give them HP and specific damage resistances. Anyone else changed this?

[Unoriginal]

On a side note, does anyone else think making someone roll an attack roll to break a stationary object is really dumb?

An attack roll isn't only the chance to have the hit connect with the target, AC represent how hard it is to damage said target in various ways. I have no issue with it, although it's true it can be superfluous in a situation you have enough time.

A STR ability check can also be used to break objects.

[TyGuy]

Let's look at the published material from WotC and see if there are any answers.

Comparing DMG Disarm (usable by any PC) to Battlemaster Disarm, or Shove to Battlemaster Trip, we see three differences:

(1) Normal PCs have to make a choice between Disarming/Shoving and doing damage. Battlemasters get to do both at the same time, with bonus damage.

(2) Battlemasters abilities target saving throws, not ability checks. (This is generally a disadvantage for the Battlemaster BTW, but against large foes wielding two-handed weapons the Battlemaster can wind up with a better chance of success.)

(3) Battlemasters have fewer restrictions on when they can use these abilities, e.g. can Trip with an arrow or an opportunity attack.

If you're making up custom maneuvers, you should consider following this same model: make sure that a build specialization like Battlemaster has some kind of inherent advantage at the maneuver, but the maneuver should still be usable in some form by anybody.

I meant more: attacks intended to do extra things in addition to the damage. Like the OP, attack the weapon to eliminate it by putting the damage there. Or attack the arm to try and cut off a hand (what I really meant by disarm). Or my other example that followed, going for the eyes.

The simplest solution is to just not allow specific targeting. But there are times when it would make sense or good narrative material so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MaxWilson]

On a side note, does anyone else think making someone roll an attack roll to break a stationary object is really dumb?

I just give them HP and specific damage resistances. Anyone else changed this?

Me too, exact same, except that if you wanted to hit an object with a ranged weapon maybe I'd ask you to roll against AC 5 or something at advantage (like hitting a paralyzed Dex 1 person with an arrow)--but probably I'd still just call it an auto-hit because rolling against AC 5 with advantage is not worth the table time.

[Kyutaru]

On a side note, does anyone else think making someone roll an attack roll to break a stationary object is really dumb?

I just give them HP and specific damage resistances. Anyone else changed this?

AC is not chance to hit but chance to wound. Platemail does not make you harder to hit. It protects your vital organs and prevents taking damage at all. A fighter with low dex is getting hit by every attack against him. He's not taking damage though and that's all that matters. AC is vital to object damage because it is another layer you must overcome to harm the object at all. Gotta get the perfect strike in to break it.

[JackPhoenix]

Me too, exact same, except that if you wanted to hit an object with a ranged weapon maybe I'd ask you to roll against AC 5 or something at advantage (like hitting a paralyzed Dex 1 person with an arrow)--but probably I'd still just call it an auto-hit because rolling against AC 5 with advantage is not worth the table time.

Unlike video games, you can't break a wall by shooting arrows at it, even if it's hard to miss it, which is what object AC represents. Granted, it's still not perfect representation, because you eventually *can* destroy stone wall with enough arrows in D&D, but it's considerably harder than, I dunno, cutting a hangman's noose with the same arrow.

[Unoriginal]

Unlike video games, you can't break a wall by shooting arrows at it, even if it's hard to miss it, which is what object AC represents. Granted, it's still not perfect representation, because you eventually *can* destroy stone wall with enough arrows in D&D, but it's considerably harder than, I dunno, cutting a hangman's noose with the same arrow.

The first step of the breaking rules is the DM determining of it's possible to break the target with the tool you're using.

I don't know many people who would say normal arrows can break a stone wall.

[MThurston]

In 3.5, to sunder a weapon you had to win an opposed attack roll, which I think is a kind of neat way of handling things. If you want to keep it simple, though, "make an attack roll at disadvantage; if you hit, you damage the object in question" is probably sufficient.
But not with a bear hand.

History shows that special weapons were used to break weapons.

They were not broken by punching them with a fist.

[MaxWilson]

Unlike video games, you can't break a wall by shooting arrows at it, even if it's hard to miss it, which is what object AC represents. Granted, it's still not perfect representation, because you eventually *can* destroy stone wall with enough arrows in D&D, but it's considerably harder than, I dunno, cutting a hangman's noose with the same arrow.

AC is worse at modeling this property of walls than damage thresholds are, especially once you factor in bounded accuracy and the fact that the wall is for all intents and purposes paralyzed. If I want a peasant to be incapable of smashing a wall to bits with his bare hands, giving it DR 5 and 20 HP is more appropriate than giving it AC 20 and 20 HP. AC 20 will slow him down but DR 5 will stop him cold until he finds a tool like a hammer.

Also, once the peasant becomes a high-level wizard he could hit AC 20 semi-reliably with his bare hands, but he would still be unable to punch through DR 5. I like that.

[SociopathFriend]

I actually developed a slight reputation in a fencing class because I would shatter the fencing foils out of other people's hands so I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to break a weapon.

That said, most weapons are kinda made to be banged together again and again without breaking. If you start that then you'd probably include armor as well- after all unless you mend it that hole in your armor is still there. Hitting someone hard enough their armor fails is a thing as well.
It just strikes me as a lot more trouble than it's worth.

For a story beat? A one-time thing to show the bad guy is stronger than the heroes by breaking the weapon right out of their hands? Or cleaving through their armor and leaving them half-dead? Sure I can see that. But having to possibly deal with that for every battle is tedious and also going to specifically piss off Martials because casters will pretty much never have to worry about that.

Because mark my words the mages once that becomes viable will Magic Missile the weapon out of anyone's hand and that's just not going to be fun for anyone.

[Kyutaru]

That said, most weapons are kinda made to be banged together again and again without breaking.

A common misconception. Anyone who's used a kitchen knife on the wrong material has ruined their blade. Weapons were not meant to be banged together with the force that is common to their users. They chipped, broke, and shafted and had to be maintained or thrown out regularly. A masterpiece item like a sword may be far more durable but it still becomes utterly useless after a few good swings and loses any sense of its edge. At that point you're just stabbing people with a hunk of steel. You'd do just as well with a piece of rhubarb. The whole bang your weapons together thing is a movie trope that promotes cool epic acting and unrealistic weaponry and tactics. If you had to practice, you used a practice sword. Wood is easier to replace than an expensive blacksmith item.

Modern weapons have the privilege of better materials and craftsmanship while D&D does have special metals that make them slightly more durable. You can get away with banging weapons together but in the old days if you smacked a shield too many times your sword was blunted.

[Gryndle]

So can my fighter make a strike to break a monk's fists? It's only fair and far more probable.

that's called an attack roll. on hit you do damage to the monk.

[SociopathFriend]

A common misconception. Anyone who's used a kitchen knife on the wrong material has ruined their blade. Weapons were not meant to be banged together with the force that is common to their users. They chipped, broke, and shafted and had to be maintained or thrown out regularly.

By "break" I meant the most extreme use of the term as in the weapon comes apart in a manner that requires more than typical maintenance like honing your edge, tightening wrappings, or cleaning it. That was why I initially mentioned outright shattering foils instead of just knocking a bit loose- to establish I meant the extreme use of the term.

And by "again and again" I meant within the context of combat, which in most real-life cases would be over in a matter of seconds and only a few exchanges. Real-life isn't D&D where you wail on someone else in armor for 20 minutes and whittle their HP down.

[JackPhoenix]

And by "again and again" I meant within the context of combat, which in most real-life cases would be over in a matter of seconds and only a few exchanges. Real-life isn't D&D where you wail on someone else in armor for 20 minutes and whittle their HP down.

And 5e apparently isn't D&D either, because it's very rare to have a someone last longer than about 30 seconds (or 5 turns) against appropriate opponents.

[Lupine]

History shows that special weapons were used to break weapons.

They were not broken by punching them with a fist.

That argument fails, because monk weapon attacks become magical, and also we play in a world where LITERAL MAGIC exists.

However, even mundane weapons, such a mace and chain could break a sword.

Those weapons were designed to make breaking weapons EASIER, but any weapon can be broken by another, given time and skill, which is exactly what a monk would have.