RAW - destroying an object (weapon / armor)

[da newt]

It was brought to my attention that it isn't difficult to destroy an opponent's weapon (to which I thought, BS, then I read up on it). DMG pg 246 says objects have an AC based on material (wood 15, steel 19, etc) and hp based on size (and if it's fragile or resilient). Further DMG pg 141 states magic stuff is resistant to damage unless it's an Artifact then it's nearly indestructible.

Based on this info if a foe attacks you with a Maul / Great Axe it may be best to target the weapon's wooden shaft (ac 15) and if you do 4d8 damage to it it is destroyed (and if it's a +3 Dwarven Thrower, you'll have to do just twice that), or if they are wearing plate mail it has 19 ac, but if you can do 18 hp damage to it, it is destroyed and the opponent's AC goes from 18 to 10 ...

An upcast Magic Missile could destroy the enemy's epic magic weapon. FU Erinyes - I'm taking out your bow round 1.

This seems to be RAW, but just feels wrong. Is there anything RAW that overrules the above?

[Asisreo1]

It was brought to my attention that it isn't difficult to destroy an opponent's weapon (to which I thought, BS, then I read up on it). DMG pg 246 says objects have an AC based on material (wood 15, steel 19, etc) and hp based on size (and if it's fragile or resilient). Further DMG pg 141 states magic stuff is resistant to damage unless it's an Artifact then it's nearly indestructible.

Based on this info if a foe attacks you with a Maul / Great Axe it may be best to target the weapon's wooden shaft (ac 15) and if you do 4d8 damage to it it is destroyed (and if it's a +3 Dwarven Thrower, you'll have to do just twice that), or if they are wearing plate mail it has 19 ac, but if you can do 18 hp damage to it, it is destroyed and the opponent's AC goes from 18 to 10 ...

An upcast Magic Missile could destroy the enemy's epic magic weapon. FU Erinyes - I'm taking out your bow round 1.

This seems to be RAW, but just feels wrong. Is there anything RAW that overrules the above?
There is no "Wooden Shaft."

You target a piece of equipment and that equipment has its AC. Even if its a composite piece of equipment, it is still only one object.

A window usually has wood along with the glass, but it still has glass AC. An iron breastplate usually has leather straps, but its still iron.

An iron polearm, for all intents and purposes, still uses iron AC, even if its made of iron.

[Elbeyon]

An iron polearm, for all intents and purposes, still uses iron AC, even if its made of iron.If someone is trying to break a polearm, they are not trying to damage the metal head. They are going to break the shaft. It completely makes sense to use wood ac for a wooden shafted weapon. The metal head is the smallest part of the object, moving the most, and the toughest to break. It is weird to assume that is what would determine the ac.

Edit: It has always been easier to break a weapon over killing a person at higher levels. People's hp increase while a weapon's does not. High level characters are tougher than solid steel. People usually want sundering off the table for both pcs and npcs. Sundering is how the pcs end up with no loot and no armor after an adventure. The pcs do not want sundering around.

[Asisreo1]

If someone is trying to break a polearm, they are not trying to damage the metal head. They are going to break the shaft. It completely makes sense to use wood ac for a wooden shafted weapon. The metal head is the smallest part of the object, moving the most, and the toughest to break. It is weird to assume that is what would determine the ac.

Edit: It has always been easier to break a weapon over killing a person at higher levels. People's hp increase while a weapon's does not. High level characters are tougher than solid steel. People usually want sundering off the table for both pcs and npcs. Sundering is how the pcs end up with no loot and no armor after an adventure. The pcs do not want sundering around.
That would be fine and dandy if the books made a distinction between "wooden-shaft iron-head spears," "Sharpened wood-spears," and "iron-shaft steel-headed spears."

The likeliest situation is that someone gets the idea of sundering equipment but the DM never really thought about the materials and composition of the metals. Most players will soon go for the leather straps off armor and the hilts of blades and the DM will have a complex mess.

Nah, if it's iron, it's iron for the sake of AC. There's no called shots on creatures so why suddenly allow called shots on PC's?

Also, sundering is usually the least effective option at higher levels. Yeah, you're very likely to do it, but your dumping around 40-50 damage into basically nothing. And the equipment your breaking is a dime-a-dozen usually. Break a greatsword? Oh no! But the 11th level fighter has 5 more in his backpack so who cares.

[Lunali]

Object AC is based on a static object, targeting a weapon that is currently being wielded is an entirely different proposition. As for armor, on top of having to deal with the AC, that's the amount of damage necessary to cut through the armor, but the majority of the suit would still be intact and providing it's benefits.

[Elbeyon]

That would be fine and dandy if the books made a distinction between "wooden-shaft iron-head spears," "Sharpened wood-spears," and "iron-shaft steel-headed spears."

The likeliest situation is that someone gets the idea of sundering equipment but the DM never really thought about the materials and composition of the metals. Most players will soon go for the leather straps off armor and the hilts of blades and the DM will have a complex mess.

Nah, if it's iron, it's iron for the sake of AC. There's no called shots on creatures so why suddenly allow called shots on PC's?

Also, sundering is usually the least effective option at higher levels. Yeah, you're very likely to do it, but your dumping around 40-50 damage into basically nothing. And the equipment your breaking is a dime-a-dozen usually. Break a greatsword? Oh no! But the 11th level fighter has 5 more in his backpack so who cares.Exactly, there are no called shots. In your glass and armor example, you went with the largest, bulkiest part of the target. In the spear example, you went with the smallest, toughest to hit target. The so and so called shot against a spear would be the head. If you are being consistent and saying the toughest part of the object must be attacked, your window must be destroyed by attacking the wooden frame.

Pcs might have back-up weapons, but their magic items might be few. They lose their good weapons and have to switch to junk ones. And, pcs might be loaded but tons of weapon using npcs only have one main weapon. If you break a npc ranger's bow, they will most likely not have another bow.

[da newt]

Lunali - I don't disagree w/ your logic, but can you state RAW that supports? I can't find it.

Asisreo - as far as the surface area of a glaive / great axe / maul - it's mostly wood with just a little bit of metal for a tip/head - I'd think AC of 15 would be very logical. Why would you argue that an attack trying to break a Maul would need to destroy the steel head (1 cuft) and not the 5' long wooden shaft?

A magic weapon would have resistance to damage and 4d8 hp - this is an average of 18 hp *2 for resistance is 36hp. Yes many PCs have extra weapons (but often only one magic one, or one really good one), but how many NPC / Monsters do? How many GWM PC's carry extra Heavy weapons? If you are facing a PAM GWM Barbarian and you destroy their glaive, how many also have a pike in their back pocket just in case?

If the foe has 19 ac and 130 hp, but his weapon has 15 ac and 18 hp, and their back up weapon is a short sword or bow; yeah - there are niche cases where it is tactically smart to disarm a foe but ...

[Asisreo1]

Exactly, there are no called shots. In your glass and armor example, you went with the largest, bulkiest part of the target. In the spear example, you went with the smallest, toughest to hit target. The so and so called shot against a spear would be the head. If you are being consistent and saying the toughest part of the object must be attacked, your window must be destroyed by attacking the wooden frame.

Even if what you're targetting is the largest part of the target, it uses the same AC. You can't target an Ogre's stomach to make it throw up, for example. You can say you target their stomach and you can say your intentions, but until HP=0, there is no extra effect no matter where you target.



Pcs might have back-up weapons, but their magic items might be few. They lose their good weapons and have to switch to junk ones. And, pcs might be loaded but tons of weapon using npcs only have one main weapon. If you break a npc ranger's bow, they will most likely not have another bow.
Magic items are at least as durable as the same kind (HP), and it has resistance to all damage. Most magic items will be fine as long as the characters treat them right.

Artifacts are invincible, too. It's rare they'll be handed out, but if they are, they'll never break.

[Elbeyon]

Even if what you're targetting is the largest part of the target, it uses the same AC. You can't target an Ogre's stomach to make it throw up, for example. You can say you target their stomach and you can say your intentions, but until HP=0, there is no extra effect no matter where you target.

Magic items are at least as durable as the same kind (HP), and it has resistance to all damage. Most magic items will be fine as long as the characters treat them right.So, you agree that in order to break a glass window a player must destroy the wooden frame? You disagree with what you said earlier? You are saying that the toughest part of the object is what counts correct? If someone wears a shirt with metal buttons, the shirt has metal ac range, correct? It is a metal shirt for statistic purposes.

Less durable than high hp targets. The same enemies that the pcs would normally fight can easily break all the pcs magic gear. Easier than going after a pc.

[Lunali]

Lunali - I don't disagree w/ your logic, but can you state RAW that supports? I can't find it.

"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."

A weapon or armor being used is no longer inanimate.

[DarknessEternal]

5e provides no rules which allow you to damage an object being worn, wielded, carried, etc by another being.

Every rule it has about damaging objects is about damaging an object that is completely unattended.

[LudicSavant]

"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."

A weapon or armor being used is no longer inanimate.

I think inanimate in this context probably means
"not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans" (source of definition, Google dictionary)

Is there a place that talks about worn or carried or attended objects with respect to these rules? I'm AFB at the moment.

[MinotaurWarrior]

"the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does. "

Using common sense, you cannot sunder a weapon that is being wielded because it is not fixed. Even if the other person is not avoiding or actively mitigating the blow, what will happen for a one handed weapon is that the object will move and the person's wrist will bend. For a two handed weapon it might be a different joint. For armor and shields, trying to hit them is the same thing as trying to hit the person underneath.

Want to destroy the enemy weapon? DM permitting, use the disarm maneuver first. If they're not using that optional rule, be an AT and use mage hand before the start of combat.

[Unoriginal]

An upcast Magic Missile could destroy the enemy's epic magic weapon. FU Erinyes - I'm taking out your bow round 1.

This seems to be RAW, but just feels wrong. Is there anything RAW that overrules the above?

Sure. Magic Missile cannot damage items at all. Same is true for some other spells, like Eldritch Blast.



Using common sense, you cannot sunder a weapon that is being wielded because it is not fixed. Even if the other person is not avoiding or actively mitigating the blow, what will happen for a one handed weapon is that the object will move and the person's wrist will bend. For a two handed weapon it might be a different joint. For armor and shields, trying to hit them is the same thing as trying to hit the person underneath.

Weapons can clash and break, though.



Want to destroy the enemy weapon? DM permitting, use the disarm maneuver first. If they're not using that optional rule, be an AT and use mage hand before the start of combat.

As a DM I tend to rule that the AC is either the one of the material or the one of the wielder.



Also worth noting that it is possible for non-artifact magic items to be indestructible. It is a minor property some of them have (generally with a condition under which they can be broken).

[LudicSavant]

I've always taken the various mentions of 'use common sense when determining if you can damage objects' as extending to abilities, too, because if you DON'T do that you get a world where dragon breath can harm creatures but not a piece of paper on the floor and that is a very sad D&D world that makes me sad. :smallfrown:

I mean, I'm pretty sure JC said otherwise somewhere, but I don't care, dragons need to be able to burn people *and* things and that's that.

[Elbeyon]

Lots of abilities only mention creatures. It is pretty weird. It is true a dragon's fire breath can never catch paper on fire by the rules. It can never burn anything except creatures. It can not burn castles or a field of wheat. Those are the rules! It is also stupid, so yeah.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Weapons can clash and break, though.


They really can't. Not to say it literally never happens, but those are mostly material faults and all far less than 5% likelihood. Practically speaking, if someone is holding a reasonably thick stick out in one hand, you can't cut through it, for the same reason you can't cut through a falling stick. It will just move. Swords have the additional issue that they will bend and flex first.

When weapons are much more likely to break is not when they are being hit - it's when they are hitting a (relatively) fixed object. The way to represent this would be to have durability ratings for your equipment that go down with use, or a critical failure table. Other games have done that, it's annoying, and I think 5E choose not to.


As a DM I tend to rule that the AC is either the one of the material or the one of the wielder.

I really don't see the justification. It someone is wearing leather armor, and you swing right at their chest, do they stop parrying, blocking, and dodging because you're "aiming at what's on your chest, not what's underneath"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a case where I interpret the RAW as being
* optional--the DM isn't expected to apply it everywhere (hence why it's in the DMG, not the PHB)
* not worth applying for anything worn or carried.

In fact, I have made part of my setting's explanation for the unnatural durability of adventurers to include why their gear doesn't break like twigs. One solid hit from a giant should bend that plate armor into scrap. But if you get healed, you're fine. Same reason that a fireball only affects creatures and items not worn or carried.

It goes like this. Every person in the world has 3 parts to their soul: the body (interface with the physical world), the self (the actual individuality, the thing that makes you you), and the nimbus/aura (the interface with the immaterial and between the self and the body). The nimbus is how casters interact with the weave/ambient magical energy/what have you to cast spells; it's how spiritual senses work, it's the part that connects body to spirit.

The nimbus stores a certain amount of energy (HP) that can be used to restore the body's self-image, undoing wounds as they happen/preventing them from happening. You get hit, you feel the pain, but your body is not broken as long as energy remains in your nimbus. Stronger souls have stronger self-images and deeper stores of energy with which to replenish them (ie more HP). There are deeper reserves yet, but these take time to access and refill much slower (ie HD). When your reserves of energy are depleted, your soul scrabbles for whatever energy it can to keep you going. Sometimes that works...sometimes it fails. Magical healing is a direct refill of your energy and thus brings you back to your feet.

The nimbus extends outside the body, both to interact with the world outside and because your equipment is part of your self image. So as far as your soul is concerned, your equipment is part of you. Damage to it is repaired/prevented just as is damage to your body, by depleting your reserves of energy. Thus, equipment damage happens via HP damage. When you're below half HP (and your soul starts conserving energy and thus letting the cosmetic damage show), your equipment starts getting a bit tattered and worn. Until then, nada.

This also explains attunement and how you can find a partially-filled wand that then regains full charges. Attunement is a link between your nimbus and the item--it draws on your soul/channels energy through your soul (depending on the item). This taxes the soul, so you can't attune to everything. Wands and other charged objects, even those that don't require attunement, siphon off trace amounts from your soul, using you as a energy-gathering conduit. So a wand without a wielder doesn't replenish charges, but a wand carried by someone does.

Sure, this is very anime. But it explains the rules very well IMO and is actually an incredibly productive explanation. All those limited-use abilities, including spell slots? They're bound up in this system as well. And it's not just adventurers--it's everyone. It's just some people and creatures have stronger souls (based on experience and internal potential) than others. Sickness and poison that don't directly attack HP are primarily attacks on your self-image, more like natural curses than like microbiological organisms.

[Unoriginal]

I really don't see the justification. It someone is wearing leather armor, and you swing right at their chest, do they stop parrying, blocking, and dodging because you're "aiming at what's on your chest, not what's underneath"?

Of course they don't stop, which is why the wielder's (or in this case, wearer's) AC is used.

I should have precised that the highest AC between the two is used (under the reasoning that being worn by someone with 6 in DEX doesn't make the armor's material any weaker).

[sophontteks]

Basically everything "on a person" is invincible unless mentioned otherwise. The second it leaves a persons inventory, it's vulnerable. It doesn't make sense, but enforcing destructable possessions is very unfun, and you can't have it both ways.

This is specifically mentioned in the objects section where an object is something both discrete and inanimate. Discrete here means individually seperate. Something on a person doesn't meet either criteria.

If your DM did allow your character to do this, you'd regret it when he starts looking at your inventory every time your hit by a fireball or fall in water. Or even worse, when npcs do the same trick to you.

Now as for your strategy. It's not that great anyway. You can roll an athletics check to disarm an opponent. I believe the exact rules for that arr in the DMG, but you can perform athletics checka to do all sorts of stuff like that. It's very easy to get huge athletics check bonuses. Expertise, adv, enlarge/reduce, hex, etc. And most enemies have poor athletics/acrobatics.

My own barbarian has advantage to disarming from rage and expertise from prodigy. It's practically an autosuccess to disarm an opponent, and its a free action to grab their weapon. Thats 1000 times better then wacking their weapon with a stick.

But be warned its still mediocre. The opponent can just take out another weapon and most things we fight don't need weapons anyway.

[Unoriginal]

Basically everything "on a person" is invincible unless mentioned otherwise. The second it leaves a persons inventory, it's vulnerable. It doesn't make sense, but enforcing destructable possessions is very unfun, and you can't have it both ways.

If your DM did allow your character to do this, you'd regret it when he starts looking at your inventory every time your hit by a fireball or fall in water. Or even worse, when npcs do the same trick to you.

Now as for your strategy. It's not that great anyway. You can roll an athletics check to disarm an opponent. I believe the exact rules for that arr in the DMG, but you can perform athletics checka to do all sorts of stuff like that. It's very easy to get huge athletics check bonuses. Expertise, adv, enlarge/reduce, hex, etc. And most enemies have poor athletics/acrobatics.

My own barbarian has advantage to disarming from rage and expertise from prodigy. It's practically an autosuccess to disarm an opponent, and its a free action to grab their weapon. Thats 1000 times better then wacking their weapon with a stick.


Disarming is: person make a weapon attack vs the target's STR (Athletics) or DEX (Acrobatics).

So your Goliath wouldn't be much better at it than anyone else.



But be warned its still mediocre. The opponent can just take out another weapon and most things we fight don't need weapons anyway.

Hard disagree. Many NPCs do rely on weapons, and most of those who do don't have enough of them to "just pull out another". And that's not getting into the enemies who use magic weapons.

Disarming's tactical worth as an option is situstional, but very powerful when it matters. But of course it's going to be more useful against a Drow House Captain than against a Gorillion.

[Asisreo1]

5e provides no rules which allow you to damage an object being worn, wielded, carried, etc by another being.

Every rule it has about damaging objects is about damaging an object that is completely unattended.
Not only is this untrue regarding basic attacks:


1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

It is also untrue for spells:


Object. You can try to move an object that weighs up to 1,000 pounds. If the object isn't being worn or carried, you automatically move it up to 30 feet in any direction, but not beyond the range of this spell.

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your spellcasting ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.

You can exert fine control on objects with your telekinetic grip, such as manipulating a simple tool, opening a door or a container, stowing or retrieving an item from an open container, or pouring the contents from a vial.

So, yes. The game absolutely allows you to target objects being worn or carried.

In fact, you can do so with the light cantrip:


If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.

[sophontteks]

Assuming my human barbarian is a goliath? My barbarian is offended good sir!

But yeah, the fact is there are rules for this already in the game and they work if you are facing something that relies on their weapon.

[Asisreo1]

Hard disagree. Many NPCs do rely on weapons, and most of those who do don't have enough of them to "just pull out another". And that's not getting into the enemies who use magic weapons.

Disarming's tactical worth as an option is situstional, but very powerful when it matters. But of course it's going to be more useful against a Drow House Captain than against a Gorillion.
Depends on the weapon. If it has the "Thrown" property, the person has 2d4 of them. That's an average of 5 spears per tribal warrior.

Also, a creature has 2d10 ammunition, average of 11. Of course, you can max it out to 20 and it usually won't matter (but you might want to keep an eye out for multiattacking ranged enemies, yes they run out of ammo faster).

[sophontteks]

Not only is this untrue regarding basic attacks:

It is also untrue for spells:

So, yes. The game absolutely allows you to target objects being worn or carried.

In fact, you can do so with the light cantrip:
An object must be both discrete and inanimate to qualify as a destructable object unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

[Asisreo1]

An object must be both discrete and inanimate to qualify as a destructable object unless specifically mentioned otherwise.


inanimate

in·​an·​i·​mate | \ (ˌ)i-ˈna-nə-mət \

Definition of inanimate

1: not animate:

a: not endowed with life or spiritan inanimate object

b: lacking consciousness or power of motionan inanimate body

2: not animated or lively : DULL



Discrete

dis·​crete | \ di-ˈskrēt , ˈdis-ˌ \

Definition of discrete

1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinctseveral discrete sections

2a: consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : NONCONTINUOUS

b: taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of valuesdiscrete probabilitiesa discrete random variable

Neither of these definitions disqualify an equipped set of armor or weapons.

[Unoriginal]

Assuming my human barbarian is a goliath? My barbarian is offended good sir!

I apologize, I was reading another thread with a goliath barbarian just before this one and I think my brain went crosswire some.


Depends on the weapon. If it has the "Thrown" property, the person has 2d4 of them. That's an average of 5 spears per tribal warrior.

Also, a creature has 2d10 ammunition, average of 11. Of course, you can max it out to 20 and it usually won't matter (but you might want to keep an eye out for multiattacking ranged enemies, yes they run out of ammo faster).

Well yeah, thrown and ranged weapons are obviously exceptions, since the whole point of them is kinda to disarm yourself offensively.