Attacking Objects with Firebolt

[Ogun]

Firebolt , unlike most cantrips can target objects.
Can I target weapons or shields?
If I target the rug under your feet, would you be damaged by the ensuing fire?
If a target is covered in lamp oil, does that count as wearing or holding it?
What if you are caught in a net?

Could I use firebolt to melt a lock, or the hinges off of a door, or burn a hole through a wall?

[Amnestic]

Firebolt , unlike most cantrips can target objects.
Can I target weapons or shields?

Usually the spell will specify if it can't target carried/worn objects, however, I would advise against this as a general tactic, if only because the enemy will then start doing it to you, and when they break your stuff it tends to matter a lot more than if you break their stuff.

You blow up an enemy's shield, they lose 2AC for a fight and then they die. They blow up your shield, you better have one spare otherwise it's going to be 2AC down until you can get back to town, which could be another dozen fights away.

[ProsecutorGodot]

1- I don't see why not, but I'm not sure the DM will have the AC and hit points of armor and shields at the ready.
2- Depends how the DM rules on fire surfaces but if they stay in the fire, probably.
3- No, oil doesn't care whether it's worn or carried anyway, a creature covered in it only has to take fire damage at all even if that fire somehow can't ignite other things.
4- DM call here, but I'd assume the net would burn away faster than it could cause any lasting damage to the trapped target.
5- Lock - It has AC and hit points / Hinges - Probably / Wall - it depends on the type of wall but I'd say you could probably burn a hole through a wooden one easily.

[Dark.Revenant]

Based on the object rules, I'd say most weapons would have AC 19 and 5–18 HP (depending on size), and most armor would have AC 19 and 18 HP (at least for the chestpiece). A metal shield would have AC 19 and 10–18 HP, while a wooden one would have AC 15. I'd also rule they have resistance to fire damage—including the wooden shield. These ACs assume the object is not dodging, so I'd add the wielder's Dexterity modifier at the least.

Therefore, a typical tier 2 Fire Bolt would need to hit the shield (not an easy task) perhaps four times to actually destroy it.

[Ogun]

If enemies commonly use shields, I'm sure to come across another.
A Lizardfolk Aberrant Mind sorcerer could make a new shield, from the flesh if the fallen...
I think magic stone will work for this tactic as well,and they match a psi build better.

I like taking prisoner's , or better still converting opponents to minions.
Knocking out enemies gets the job done, but a flashy disarm can really impress.

In any case, alternatives to killing things makes DnD magical for me, so I'm looking forward to trying this out.

[Ogun]

Wood used for weapons, armor and such probably should be resistant to fire damage.
Another reason to try Magic Stone.
I think most bows shouldn't have the ACs of metal items.
Crossbows might have a metal prod, but the strings, fletching, etc, not so much.
Axes , polearms and spears, are half wood, again, them having the AC of an all metal items seems a bit much.
Torching leather and cloth items could be quite intimidating, if not practical.

[sophontteks]

You hit their shield when you miss, so it seems a pretty strange thing to intentionally target. How is aiming for a shield and hitting different from aiming for the person and that person blocking the attack with their shield?

Shields can take some serious damage. A shield master can block dragons breath with it. Considering this, firebolt seems a little... flaccid.

In most games the damage to weapons and armor is handwaved under "normal maintenance" that can be done during a short rest. They didn't really make a system for damage and repairs. I think likely because it'd gum the game down. (Though it would have made short rests more important.)

[Keravath]

If you are interested in RAW - firebolt does what it says it does ... nothing more and nothing less.

"You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried."

1) You can target objects.
2) The target takes 1d10 fire damage - it is up to the DM to decide what this would do to an object.
3) If a flammable object is hit by the spell and is not being worn or carried then it ignites.

You can target weapons or shields but it doesn't do anything unless fire can damage the weapon or shield. There are no rules about objects getting hotter when hit by firebolt, heat transmission, or anything else. The DM can homebrew what they want but other than the object taking 1d10 fire damage the bolt does nothing else. It can not set held weapons/worn armor or something similar on fire because they are worn or carried.

If you set the rug under a creature's feet on fire then they would take fire damage from the fire. It would be up to the DM to decide how big the fire is and how much damage it might cause.

If the target is covered with lamp oil, I would personally consider that worn or carried, since it would not be on their clothes if it wasn't being carried.

I'd probably rule that you could set a net on fire with firebolt since if the creature is trapped they aren't wearing it or carrying it but it might depend on details of the circumstances.

[Quietus]

You hit their shield when you miss, so it seems a pretty strange thing to intentionally target. How is aiming for a shield and hitting different from aiming for the person and that person blocking the attack with their shield?

Shields can take some serious damage. A shield master can block dragons breath with it. Considering this, firebolt seems a little... flaccid.

In most games the damage to weapons and armor is handwaved under "normal maintenance" that can be done during a short rest. They didn't really make a system for damage and repairs. I think likely because it'd gum the game down. (Though it would have made short rests more important.)

It's a different thing because a square hit to the shield is not the same thing as the shield blocking an attack. Shields aren't used to absorb an attack head-on, that's how you break your arm. They're used to divert and deflect.

Attack blocked by shield = catching the weapon and moving its momentum aside
Attack against the shield = hitting the shield in such a way as to ensure the shield itself takes damage

[sophontteks]

It's a different thing because a square hit to the shield is not the same thing as the shield blocking an attack. Shields aren't used to absorb an attack head-on, that's how you break your arm. They're used to divert and deflect.

Attack blocked by shield = catching the weapon and moving its momentum aside
Attack against the shield = hitting the shield in such a way as to ensure the shield itself takes damage
This is just not true. Arm-wrapped shields can't even move momentum aside. They are practically a fixed piece of armor. They are made to get hit and shields are taking far, far more then a fireball cantrip on the regular. Firebolt isn't even a kinetic force, it's minor fire damage.

It's just impossible to imagine a shield taking the full force of a dragon, yet crumbling to a little fire cantrip.

[Ogun]

Neither AC or Hit Points make physical sense, the AC and Hit Points of a sheild are not going to make sense either.
I don't think metal armor or shields would do squat against a dragons breath, it would be like cooking spam in a can.
Furthermore, the number of monsters a warrior had previously killed wouldn't improve his ability to survive the ordeal.

[Bardon]

If you are interested in RAW - firebolt does what it says it does ... nothing more and nothing less.

"You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried."

1) You can target objects.
2) The target takes 1d10 fire damage - it is up to the DM to decide what this would do to an object.
3) If a flammable object is hit by the spell and is not being worn or carried then it ignites.

You can target weapons or shields but it doesn't do anything unless fire can damage the weapon or shield. There are no rules about objects getting hotter when hit by firebolt, heat transmission, or anything else. The DM can homebrew what they want but other than the object taking 1d10 fire damage the bolt does nothing else. It can not set held weapons/worn armor or something similar on fire because they are worn or carried.

If you set the rug under a creature's feet on fire then they would take fire damage from the fire. It would be up to the DM to decide how big the fire is and how much damage it might cause.

If the target is covered with lamp oil, I would personally consider that worn or carried, since it would not be on their clothes if it wasn't being carried.

I'd probably rule that you could set a net on fire with firebolt since if the creature is trapped they aren't wearing it or carrying it but it might depend on details of the circumstances.

Yeah, strong disagree on the bolded above. If someone is covered in flammable lamp oil and gets hit by "a mote of fire" the oil doesn't light up like a bonfire? Your logic about how "it wouldn't be on the clothes if it wasn't being carried" has me baffled. Say my thief friend throws a vial of flammable oil on someone whom I then target with Firebolt. Do you honestly believe that oil counts as "worn or carried" and shouldn't alight?

Sorry, but I really can't fathom how that would be reasonable.

[greenstone]

5E doesn't have called shots or carried item targeting or anything like that, apart from disarm rules. I haven't read any official sources saying why, but I imagine its for increasing ease of play and reducing aggravation.

If you allow attack to target items then one attack can completely neutralise a caster - by destroying their focus. Same for one attack taking out a warrior - by targeting the straps holding their armour up.

As a player, I would take it badly if one attack or cantrip takes my character completely out of the fight. It would suck. It would also be a big hassle of recordkeeping (imagine a fireball damaging worn items, now you have to go through every item on your character sheet).

So, the damaging spells (particularly fireball) don't affect caried or worn items. Your gear is immune.

There are exceptions. For example, a disarm attempt, a pickpocket attempt, a damaging effect (rust monster, ozze).

As for the question above, if a character used an action to cover a foe in oil I would allow another character to light it with a torch or burning arrow, so I'd do the same for flame bolt.

[JoeJ]

Yeah, strong disagree on the bolded above. If someone is covered in flammable lamp oil and gets hit by "a mote of fire" the oil doesn't light up like a bonfire? Your logic about how "it wouldn't be on the clothes if it wasn't being carried" has me baffled. Say my thief friend throws a vial of flammable oil on someone whom I then target with Firebolt. Do you honestly believe that oil counts as "worn or carried" and shouldn't alight?

Sorry, but I really can't fathom how that would be reasonable.

Given that clothing without oil is completely unaffected, no matter how flammable the material might be, I don't see why clothing with oil would be any different. Firebolt doesn't work like a torch, which would ignite cloth with or without oil. It's magic, and follows its own rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, strong disagree on the bolded above. If someone is covered in flammable lamp oil and gets hit by "a mote of fire" the oil doesn't light up like a bonfire? Your logic about how "it wouldn't be on the clothes if it wasn't being carried" has me baffled. Say my thief friend throws a vial of flammable oil on someone whom I then target with Firebolt. Do you honestly believe that oil counts as "worn or carried" and shouldn't alight?

Sorry, but I really can't fathom how that would be reasonable.

It makes no sense from a realism standpoint, and isn't supported through RAW either - the only requirement to ignite someone covered in lamp oil is to deal fire damage to them. The source of that damage is irrelevant.

Sure, there's a certain suspension of disbelief we have to expect for the "ignites objects that aren't being worn or carried" line, but I'm almost entirely sure that's meant to keep anyone in padded armor clothed after a fireball rather than treat oil that an enemy threw over you as a new fashion statement.

A third and final point against it, wearing and carrying things tend to involve choice to do so, you're not wearing or carrying water from the rain or the dirt on your boots. If something is thrown on you and you can't simply choose not to wear or carry it after, it probably doesn't count.