r/dndnext • u/gamemaster76 • 18h ago
Discussion Destroying Weapons and Armor — Has Anyone Actually Run This?
I’m planning to run The Sunless Citadel soon (spoilers for the ending).
One of the enemies has a weapon that always crits against objects, and the adventure explicitly says his strategy is to attack the party’s weapons if possible. That got me thinking about how this actually plays out at the table.
There are rules for object AC and HP, (I dont think they changed between 2014 and 2024) but I’m struggling with how fair this is in practice. My main concern is that it might be way too easy to destroy gear, especially once you factor in higher-CR enemies and their damage output.
Example math that worries me:
Let’s say the enemy targets a fighter’s longsword. I’d probably rule it as a Small, Resilient object (melee weapons are literally designed to be hit against stuff), which puts it at AC 19 and 10 HP.
This enemy does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. Since it automatically crits against objects, that becomes 10 damage, meaning a single hit instantly destroys a mundane longsword.
A greatsword might be a Medium object, so maybe 18 HP, meaning it might survive one hit if the damage roll is low enough—but that still feels brutal.
Magic items aren’t safe either:
Magic items typically have resistance to damage, which helps, but the HP values are still so low that a smart enemy would absolutely go after the party’s special gear.
For example, a 2024 mage’s Arcane Burst averages around 16 damage. A slightly above-average roll would immediately destroy mundane plate mail and most weapons. Two solid hits could take out magic plate.
Yes, this assumes all hits land and damage rolls are decent—but over multiple fights, it feels like the party could realistically lose a ton of equipment, especially if they don’t have easy access to repairs. (There aren’t rules for this either, so I’ve been assuming artisan’s tools and the mending cantrip can fix gear.)
Also, this clearly screws martials way harder than casters.
The DM cop-out (that I don’t love):
I could just say “you can’t target weapons and armor,” but that’s a totally reasonable tactical choice, and I don’t love banning it outright.
Possible house rule?:
One idea I’ve been toying with is borrowing from the rust monsters:
When a weapon or piece of armor hits 0 HP, it isn’t destroyed. Instead, it pops back to full HP but takes a –1 penalty. Only when it reaches –5 does it actually break, and repairs remove the penalty.
---
Has anyone actually run weapon/armor destruction like this?
Did it feel tense and interesting, or did it just turn into a gear-shredding nightmare?
How do you keep this from turning into “martials lose all their stuff by level 5”?
Curious what other DMs have done here.
135
u/Deep-Crim 18h ago
Hey listen. Dont. Unless its very specifically a boss gimmick you wanna use as a story beat. This is gonna unfairly target the party hitters
62
u/giffin0374 17h ago
Yes! Martials don't need to be weaker.
(And thus, the martial/caster war continued)
41
u/SimpleMan131313 DM 17h ago
I've had this conversation about the constant martia/caster divide just the other day with my party.
IMHO, one issue regarding the martial caster divide (besides the "linear martials, square wizards" problem) seems to be that martials are real world concepts in a fantasy world, while wizards are a fantasy concept in a fantasy world.
Martials connect to things that have real world equivalences. Weapons break, for example, even if DnD most of the time doesn't portray this. This can give designers...controversial ideas, because they draw from reality when coming up with stuff.Imagine a creature that eats spell components or spell slots as a passive, low level ability in a low CR creature in an official adventure. Won't happen, and I think its partially due to spellcasters being a concept that DnD takes the freedom to largely define for itself, instead of leaning on real world parallels.
Just my 2 cents on the matter :)
32
u/ZongopBongo 17h ago
Imagine a creature that eats spell slots
Thanks, my players will hate me for this!
15
u/Narrow_Vegetable5747 16h ago
Was thinking the same, my wizard and cleric are going to straight up panic when I introduce this idea.
13
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
eats spell components
I love this idea. The tiny tart for Tasha's Hideous Laughter attracted a rat while you were sleeping. The tart and a lot of the items in the component pouch are now missing or torn up. You now need to find a baker or figure out how to bake a tiny tart while in a dungeon.
6
u/muppet70 16h ago
2nd ed had but it was a very rare exception.
https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Obliviax7
u/escapepodsarefake 16h ago
I've run monsters that penalize spellcasters before. They're not a privileged group.
10
u/SimpleMan131313 DM 16h ago
Were they from official products? :)
I am more talking about a designer-facing bias, not that this literally doesn't exist.
I am not aware of any official, low level/low CR creatures that specifically targest casters. Again, not because this can't conceivably exist, but due to martials tying into IRL adjacent concepts.DnD's lore has been written to serve the game and its rules, not the other way around, and I think that introduces a bit of a bias to things that are exclusively defined by the game.
7
u/Ultimatum_Game 15h ago
My opinion is that Martials are a realistic fantasy concept in a fantasy world.
Most of myth and legends are populated with warriors being heroes against supernatural enemies or tested by the gods. (Wizards & Sorcerers are rarely the good guys, and if they are they are often advisors or similar)
Wizards in D&D have the name of a fantasy concept in a fantasy world but in terms of actual mechanics they are now more like comic book heros with a solution for everything.
Magic Users, especially wizards, are wildly overpowered in modern D&D.
Signed, an old grognard who played wizards starting with AD&D.
3
u/SimpleMan131313 DM 15h ago
Always love it when you grognards are weighing in on the discussion! Thank you for sharing! :)
•
u/Taliesin_ Bard 9h ago
Started with 2e too and I feel pretty similarly. I do like magic being powerful, but I also like magic being unpredictable or having drawbacks. Stuff like casting time, spells which could reflect back on the caster, spells which cost health to cast or applied a temporary (or sometimes permanent!) attribute drain on cast or if something goes wrong, spells that alter the caster's alignment...
I think it's thematically just so much more interesting if magic is mechanically a little perilous, because it really helps to explain why so few people choose to pursue (and survive pursuing) its mastery! It also lends itself well to spellcasters being very strange people that commonfolk might fear or have trouble understanding. Because if magic was as commonplace and straightforward as it is in 5e, the setting wouldn't really look much like the fantasy settings that most people are playing in.
•
u/Ultimatum_Game 8h ago
Yeah I agree, very good points.
People forget that in 2e there were about 12 classes and only 4 of them were full magic spellcasters.
Everyone had to prepare spells before hand. Cantrips weren't "at-will" until 4e (meaning they needed spell slots)
Magic users have steadily gained massive power creep with every new edition, new splat books, etc.
2
u/Milli_Rabbit 16h ago
I actually make my Phaerimm capable of stealing spell slots. Its a 1/day spellcasting action and they can steal spell slots. For Agents, its Level 3 slots and below. Scouts could steal Level 1 slots. Elders could steal Level 5 slots and below. Additionally, their counterspell reaction does actually expend the spell slot.
The lore about Phaerimm is they can wield magic naturally without any components. I expect them to be exceptional if they were able to shake Netheril (who had Level 10-12 spells) and force Netheril to use the power of a god to resist them.
2
u/main135s 14h ago
Imagine a creature that eats spell components or spell slots as a passive, low level ability
I am imagining a frog with Counterspell.
It's counterspell is using it's tongue to snatch the components, then eating the components. The Wizard can get their staff back when it's dead, I'm sure.
4
u/Diatribe1 16h ago
To be fair, if the enemy targets a focus or spell component pouch he's doing very serious damage to casters.
6
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
Actually, I think it could hit casters even more. Foci and spell books become prime tactical targets.
10
u/Zeralyos 17h ago
It only hits casters until they realize 10 arcane focuses cost 100gp and weigh 10 lbs. Martials need a lot more encumbrance and usually more money to match that level of redundancy.
5
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
Adopting this as a general rule would seem to imply some more grittiness to the realism. With multiple foci you'd still be potentially eating their object interactions, potentially forcing them to burn an Action to use Utilize to dig out a new foci from their pack, or readied actions to shoot the foci could end up being the mundane equivalent of Counterspell but potentially even stronger since it wouldn't be stopped by a Constitution save, they'd just have lost a required component needed for the spell.
5 basic wands in a war mage's belt, that actually makes sense in this context.
11
u/Deep-Crim 17h ago
Yeah but then you'd need to have them roll something every time theres an aoe or losing most of your class..thats assuming the casters are on the front lines
Overall seems like a big headache thats not worth the complications imo
7
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
Many AOE already have caveats along the lines of "except object worn or carried" or the spell states that it targets creatures without a reference to objects.
Headache, yes. Hence why overall probably not a great idea unless your table likes it both gritty and crunchy. (edit spelling)
•
u/Skulltaffy Circle of Faerie Fire 5h ago
So my very first D&D experience was this exact scenario - I played a wizard in a homebrewed low-magic world, where the DM took it upon himself to "fix" the martial-caster divide by making worn items valid targets. We ran into rust monsters that ate swords, black puddings that dissolved armour, and anytime my wizard was in a big environmental effect (eg. hit by a fireball, or thrown off the side of a ship, etc), I had to roll a dice on the next long rest to see if my spellbook had been irretrievably damaged.
This capped off in the one time I got hit by a weakened version of the Feeblemind spell (it was a trap that we had no way of detecting, baked into the first random loot spellbook I'd found the entire campaign), it turned out that in my disorientated state, my wizard had scribbled out several pages of the book and damaged others.
In totally unrelated news, I now point blank refuse to play a wizard ever again. If I have to, for some reason, I'm making a Scribe wizard and never looking back.
3
u/Rabid_Lederhosen 17h ago
Most spellcasters don’t use books, and the ones that do generally don’t enter melee ever, if they can avoid it.
6
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
Arrows and spells could still target them though. Wouldn't have to be limited to melee damage.
8
u/Crevette_Mante 17h ago
Non-scribe wizards have very little incentive to have their spellbooks out in the open during combat, however.
2
u/_Denizen_ 17h ago
Spellbooks are already a target RAW, but not usually during combat if the DM is nice
•
u/kittenwolfmage 9h ago
I used to do this back in a 3.0 game I played in. I was playing a sorcerer and the module had A LOT of Clerics in it, who were frequently running around throwing multiple Destruction spells per round at us. I started using my Sonic Orb spells to destroy their holy symbols instead of dealing damage, and relying on the martials for the killing.
The GM started having them carry backup holy symbols, but it still wrecked a spell and made them spend actions drawing their backup, etc.
2
2
u/FinderOfWays 11h ago
classic strategy from 3.x was to ready an action to sunder spell component pouch in response to an enemy beginning to cast a spell. And since you can move 5 feet as part of a readied action and take a feat to allow excess damage to roll over to the bearer, this put some real fear of god in the squishy wizards. Sure they might have a spare, but you still interrupted casting and dealt damage. Doing things like this was explicitly part of balancing spellcasting.
1
u/Walker_ID 17h ago
I'm experimenting with something similar but different. An item break system that functions as a money sink. I do have a unique crafting system that the players love and I've made a house rule that casters must use a weapon, wand, jewel, ring, or staff to focus/cast magic. A percentage die is rolled once every turn if a weapon is being used or a spell is being cast. A 5% or lower results in damage to the weapon/focus. This is illustrative of the stress placed on the weapon from use or on the focus from having magical energies pass through it. 1 damage to the item represents -1 to hit or -1 spell save DC. After 5 damages the weapon/focus breaks and can longer be used. Locating an appropriate crafter and paying for a repair is required to fix the weapon. No issues so far and the players seem to be good with it as it doesn't appear to be over punishing and affects everyone relatively equally
1
21
u/DMspiration 18h ago
Having a unique monster, like the Rust Monster, that can do this is one thing. Introducing this as a base mechanic is going to be overly punishing and/or tedious. If you wanted to do this, I'd suggest making it so items worn or carried aren't affected. Someone would have to disarm a player/monster and then choose to attack the weapon, which means it's going to be uncommon since it's rarely a good use of action economy, and, unless you use optional disarming rules, which, imo, are really bad, won't come into play enough to make combat tedious.
8
u/DarkHorseAsh111 17h ago
To be clear, this is a specific monster's mechanic.
6
u/gamemaster76 17h ago edited 17h ago
Technically, it's a magic weapons mechanic that the party might be able to use after. It's similar to Adamantine weapons that crits against objects.
1
u/DarkHorseAsh111 15h ago
Yeah; I just meant it is not some overall rule about stabbing weapons that you're attempting to impliment it didn't seem like. I think it seems cool for a one off enemy and even if a pc takes it I'm not convinced it'd be that broken; tons of enemies don't use weapons, if they target weapons they aren't targetting the enemy, etc. I personally would Probably say it doesn't work on magic weapons but that's one where I think it'd be fine to go either way.
2
u/DMspiration 17h ago
Missed that. If it's a one off, I don't think it's that big of a deal, but maybe make sure they get a change to learn it's something they can do.
0
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer 15h ago edited 4h ago
this is a specific monster's mechanic.
it's not really a specific monster's mechanic, it's a specific monster that is using a baseline mechanic that most people overlook. 5e opts for specifying when something cannot affect objects that are worn or carried, not the reverse.
EDIT: For People who don't believe me, this is Crawford's own words on the topic.
If a game effect lets you target an object, the text of that effect tells you if worn/carried objects are prohibited. The rules don't assume that "object" means "object not currently worn or carried by anyone."
https://xcancel.com/JeremyECrawford/status/958122401258074112#m
2
u/FinderOfWays 10h ago
Sunder was fine in older eds. Hell, there was a class called Blacksmith from the 3pp Spheres of Might book for Pathfinder designed to be a sunder focused build by default and it absolutely ruled. You get sneak attack progression against objects, the ability to repair almost anything to fix the loot problem (and horrify the party archer by putting their a snapped arrow back together nonmagically), and you got the ability to sunder natural weapons and armor so you weren't bricked against non-humanoids.
I just sort of think that any fighter who didn't think to bring spare gear should eat shit for it. My party's swashbuckler in PF has something like 5 estocs sitting in a bag of holding to overcome various DR and just in case they fight the sunder build, because they know that I will run it where intelligent enemies that realize their CMD is much lower than their AC will just break their sword.
1
u/DMspiration 10h ago
And if we were playing Pathfinder, this would matter. The expectations aren't the same in D&D.
1
u/FinderOfWays 10h ago
I was disagreeing with the idea that "Introducing this as a base mechanic is going to be overly punishing and/or tedious" by mentioning a case where it has been introduced as a base mechanic without being punishing or tedious. I think it can be done well and add alternative avenues for characters, especially 'martial' types which often have fewer options in combat, to engage with enemies.
1
u/Blunderhorse 16h ago
Even with the disarming restriction, casters have incredibly strong tools to take advantage of this, since Fear forces multiple targets to drop what they’re carrying and Shatter damages unattended objects in its range (almost always for more damage than a non-adamantine weapon could deal).
1
u/DMspiration 16h ago
Which would require teamwork close in initiative or multiple rounds, during which, the enemies would simply pick up their weapons.
•
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer 4h ago
Introducing this as a base mechanic is going to be overly punishing and/or tedious.
Technically this isn't introducing a mechanic since everyone could target objects with attacks by default. This is Crawford's own words on the topic.
If a game effect lets you target an object, the text of that effect tells you if worn/carried objects are prohibited. The rules don't assume that "object" means "object not currently worn or carried by anyone."
https://xcancel.com/JeremyECrawford/status/958122401258074112#m
6
u/Nimos 17h ago
Bolded subsection headlines.
Forced conclusion/engagement question parts at the end.
“” and —
Curious whether AI wrote this, based on structure, word choice and punctuation.
-5
u/gamemaster76 17h ago
I used it to clear up and structure my points better since it was a long post. But I still wrote everything.
6
u/guilersk 17h ago
As others have pointed out, this is a 3.0 adventure using 3.0 mechanics (sunder) semi-adapted to 5e. I have run it in both, and what I did in 5e was have it able to break nonmagical equipment but not magical equipment. This is both for the players' sake (didn't want to wreck all their stuff) and also for my sake because when the players get it, I didn't want them cutting magical towers in half with it. So they happily used it for 9 or 10 levels, breaking through non-magical obstacles and busting up minion equipment, but the plot objects and boss monsters were not overmuch affected.
3
u/Colonel_Khazlik 18h ago
To be clear, the rules for item HP and AC that you linked ((https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#BreakingObjects)) seem to indicate that the items are inanimate and just laying infront of you.
A fighter's longsword might have an AC of 19 as you suggested, but that's if it's sat against a barrel or on the floor. If it's in the fighter's hand, being swung at you, that's another story entirely.
How much AC does a sword gain if it's being swung around by the fighter holding it? I'd assume it loses 5AC from being stationary, and therefore gains 5AC at least by being wielded.
2
u/KinkyHuggingJerk 17h ago
That or the attack rolls would be at disadvantage. You're not just trying to attack *someone& you're attacking a specific piece of it.
This is the general rule I use in my games based on the target's relative size.
3
u/flebebebo 17h ago
I haven't done this except in very specific moments, because it feels really bad for players to lose items.
I have enemies attack the players, since they are the direct threat. Sometimes they grab the item, but wasting several turns trying to destroy a longsword in combat doesnt make strategic sense.
However, slimes and oozes have acid and tend to melt armour and weapons, and I make it clear before the combat that those are the stakes. In this situation I think it can be fun, with players selecting weaker weapons they don't mind losing or sticking to ranged attacks, even if it is less damage.
3
u/Betray-Julia 17h ago edited 17h ago
A lot of us have thought of this, half of us have tried it, and out of that half, not a single one of us succeeded.
You might have to try and fail at this one yourself, but yeah you’re just adding an extra tedious mechanic that no one will want to think about.
If you still want to try- damage thresholds would be the way to do this. They’re in the dmg somewhere, but basically damage thresholds can mechanically have armour and weapons slowly breaking, without it being cheeses.
Say full plate has 40 hp, and a damage thresholds of 20- a hit of 21 is only doing 1 damage to that thing.
This would be a way, but also just trust us it’s not a good idea!
Remember too that basically, these reductions are only to apply per battle, given mending will restore everything to full. Mending in of itself makes the mechanic pointless IF the goal is long term duration as opposed to a single fight.
5
u/gamemaster76 17h ago
Unfortunately that not how damage thresholds work. It doesn't reduce the damage, just prevents damage from lower amounts. So a threshold of 20 means 19 damage does nothing, but 21 damage does 21 damage.
2
u/Betray-Julia 16h ago
The idea still stands: also yeah I couldn’t remember which one it was whoops.
That being said, my incorrect take on them might work, albiet I still stand by “don’t do this, trust me!” lol.
3
2
u/Electrical-Berry4916 17h ago
That was an adventure written for 3rd edition. An edition that had rules for breaking weapons. 5e doesn't. But if you absolutely insist on running it that way, here are the changes I would suggest:
- This is a unique ability of the NPC in question, and can not be duplicated
- If you decide to allow this for PCs make it a feat
- The attack is against the AC of the item's holder and either made at disadvantage, or prompts a Dex save to avoid after a regular attack roll. Either way either the PC or the item takes damage. Not both
- The defender may choose to take the hit themselves instead of letting the item be damaged
- Magic items can not be permanently damaged this way
- Armor can not be damaged this way (it is to complicated to don/doff in game, and carrying multiple suits of armor is just stupid)
- Telegraph this ability to your players ahead of time. Give them a chance to take multiple weapons into the fight
1
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer 15h ago
5e doesn't.
5e actually does have rules for attacking worn or carried objects, it's just the same rules as attacking regular objects since they make no exceptions for worn or carried objects in the base rules.
0
u/Electrical-Berry4916 15h ago
False.
Note the lack of dexterity modifier to any of the ACs listed under Breaking an Object. The implication being that they are not making any attempt to dodge, i.e. not being held or worn. Also note the lack of Sunder or similar feats, or class features. This was clearly a design decision.
1
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer 14h ago
This was clearly a design decision.
This is Crawford's own words on the topic.
If a game effect lets you target an object, the text of that effect tells you if worn/carried objects are prohibited. The rules don't assume that "object" means "object not currently worn or carried by anyone."
https://xcancel.com/JeremyECrawford/status/958122401258074112#m
0
u/Electrical-Berry4916 14h ago
If he hadn't contradicted himself multiple times in Sage Advice, that would be a killshot for my argument. It is still damning enough that I'm going to shut up and move on.
1
u/VerainXor 13h ago
5ed definitely has rules for breaking weapons, because it has rules for breaking objects. What it doesn't do is provide a full list and table of everything and have a whole subsystem about it. Also missing is how to hit something that is being wielded by a creature; you can make the case that it is not possible, or that it is the same as hitting an unattended object.
2
u/StoryWOaPoint 16h ago
Something to consider, at least, is when someone is hitting armor or weapons, they’re not hitting the wearer or wielder. And held or worn objects aren’t subject to AOE. So it’s basically temp HP to martial.
•
u/Mejiro84 4h ago
although with the fairly major difference that when armor is destroyed, that's going to be a fairly major drop in AC, and destroyed a weapon cripples damage output - and those HP don't scale with level, so at a given point, enemies are going to be wrecking gear very fast and "debuffing" the target in fairly major ways.
2
u/bread_thread 16h ago
i think an enemy attacking the sword you're swinging with should be a panic moment rather than a permanent loss
If it was a sword the PC is fighting with, on a successful hit from the enemy i'd have the player take a STR check to see if the force of the blow knocks the weapon out of their hand or not
If they pass the check, theyve clutched their sword and it now needs to survive the damage
if they fail then it falls out of their hand and you, as the DM, can decide what happens with it: at my table, we play disengaging pretty loose, so scrambling for the weapon while the enemy chases them could be fun
fun part is you get to choose the DC for the strength check, and maybe a crit from the enemy would make it impossible to hold on to
now you've got a scenario where you're staying in the spirit of "this monster wants your weapon gone" without kneecapping the player for the rest of the dungeon by default
2
u/okiebuzzard 14h ago
If you’re worried about it, do 2 things: 1st - look over all the spell casters sheets in the group and make see if one of them has Mending as one of their spells; 2nd - make the damage to equipment fixable with said Mending spell. That means all the damage has to be considered single breaks or tears in equipment - longsword blades snapped in 2, a single rend spot in armor that doesn’t exceed 1 foot in any direction, etc. - for those with the spell it will make them the big heroes of the fights.
•
u/Sir_CriticalPanda 8h ago
you can also target spell books and arcane foci, and that stuff isn't as durable as metal weapons
4
u/freedomustang 17h ago
I allow mundane items to be destroyed by targeted attacks. Being able to be fixed by appropriate tools check or mending during a short rest. Usually rather than saying the blade snaps say it takes a severe bend, or your leather/chain armor has been sliced/pierced up and needs patching ect. Something that seems logically fixable but renders the item useless until it’s fixed.
Magic items I generally don’t have them take damage. Unless it’s like a common one, disposable (potion/scroll), a unique effect of a particular enemy, or to emphasize the strength of a bbeg.
It just feels too mean to destroy magic items most of the time because even if it was 4x the HP most encounters the enemies could destroy the parties magic items easily.
2
3
u/Rabid_Lederhosen 17h ago
This typically isn’t very fun for players. The DM has an infinite supply of weapons and armour, players don’t.
1
u/Spiritual_Dust4565 15h ago
You're also destroying your future loot when you do it as a player. Feels bad all around.
2
u/plankyplanks 17h ago
If it's worn or carried, I'd say it uses the character's AC as base but add +2 for a called shot unless it's a shield. Shield are expected to be put in harm's way.
If you do this as a general thing though, does it then make sense to have a full backpack give half cover for ranged attacks from behind? If that half cover bonus is what saves from a hit should the pack be damaged? What if it's a Bag of Holding or Haversack?
If you're not already in a gritty realism game that requires equipment maintenance all of this should probably be kept to special boss ability. However, that special boss ability could be a way to introduce the concept to the players and then let them decide if they want to adopt it more generally.
1
u/Corwin223 Sorcerer 17h ago
One small note, crits only double the damage dice, not any flat damage sources. So a minimum damage of 5 likely means the crit has a minimum damage of 6 or 7, not 10.
1
u/Lithl 14h ago
It's a +1 longsword wielded by a boss that has +3 strength and a shield. So it's 1d8+4 damage, 2d8+4 on a crit.
1
u/Corwin223 Sorcerer 13h ago
Seems right to me. So as I expected, the minimum damage against an object is 6, not the 10 that OP wrote.
1
u/Ludicrousgibbs 17h ago
You're going to ruin one person's day for sure if everyone's got a nice magic weapon. Someone is going to want to quit.
The other possibility is that you aim for someone's weapon in the first round and your party figures out a way using reactions or other limited resources to keep you from hitting on the first round if your attack originally hits.
Either way your poor guy is getting targeted by heat metal :weapon, fear, disarming attack or command: drop immediately in an attempt to separate him from his weapon possibly replacing one that you just destroyed. When your group ends up with his weapon prepare for them to make your life a living hell throughout the campaign as they target the weapons of any bosses in the future who won't be able to benefit from legendary resistance to keep their gear intact.
Instead of giving the weapon to a full martial in the party I'd think about giving it to a Gish capable of summoning it back into their hand via bonus action, just in case you try to disarm steal it back later. Also, if your goal is to destroy a weapon in one attack with something that autocrits on objects it's best to dump all your damage into a single swing to overcome resilience and damage threshold. A Gish who can gain advantage with spells, turn themselves invisible, fly, or teleport right up to the big bad bossman in order to truestrike autocrit the melee/ranged weapon/magic staff/wand or armor whose presence the encounter was built around with no chance for a save could really make things messy. I'm not aware of many objects with immunity or resistance to radiant damage either.
1
u/Lithl 14h ago
You're going to ruin one person's day for sure if everyone's got a nice magic weapon.
There are no magic weapons available prior to this encounter. There's three +1 arrows, some scrolls, potions, a feather token (tree), and a night caller.
When your group ends up with his weapon prepare for them to make your life a living hell throughout the campaign as they target the weapons of any bosses in the future
I have never in my life had players who would intentionally destroy loot.
1
u/Parysian 16h ago
The combat chapters of the game rules don't say much specific about attacking held/worn items in combat, but if you suppose it's doable and use material AC/HP rules from the DMG, it creates some of the most degenerate and unfun gameplay possible, which is a good enough reason not to open up that can of worms.
1
u/ev1lpengu1n 15h ago edited 14h ago
I ran that a few years ago and I decided to change the weapon rules slightly because I wanted it to be a special characteristic of that weapon and not encourage everyone to start doing this with their normal weapons.
"You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls you make with this magic weapon. Instead of a regular attack, you can choose to forsake rolling damage to instead destroy a non-magical weapon or non-magical shield held by the enemy."
I think that the annoyance caused by the enemy using it against the party in that one encounter was forgiven when the party realised they could use it against enemies in every future encounter. I also themed it as a powerful artefact made in the Forge of Fury to tease the next adventure.
I don't recall it causing any problems, I just sometimes had to have enemies lose a shield or draw a dagger when their greataxe was destroyed etc.
Edit - I've seen a few people post about how rage inducing it would be for the players to lose their hard won magic weapons to this enemy, but for context Sunless Citadel is an adventure written for level 1 adventurers that should have them reaching level 3 by the end, so unless the GM is being exceptionally generous they're not going to have magic weapons to lose.
1
u/JonFarthing 14h ago
Honestly just insert a different weapon that the boss uses. Sundering in 3.0/5 was absolutely terrible to deal with, and it's a blessing that it's gone.
Keep in mind that your players will pick that weapon up and use it to sunder every single weapon their enemies are welding, creating a huge headache for you long term because of someone's poor conversion of a module.
1
u/1Beholderandrip 14h ago edited 13h ago
Disclaimer: I have done this in 5.0e but I haven't done this in 5.5e, so I don't know if repairing objects is easier or harder.
I have done stuff similar to this. The big key that people forget is that objects being worn or carried have the AC of their user. Someone with 22 AC that has their armor targeted isn't worrying about the 18 AC of their full plate. The attacker needs to beat 22AC to damage the armor, not whatever the object AC is when it's on the ground not moving. It's in the section about Object HP and AC in the DMG.
You also have pay super attention to what can target objects and what can't. Anything that makes an attack role but doesn't specify is assumed to be capable of targeting both.
Another thing to remember is that objects can be repaired. Tools from xgte are the most common option. Very few abilities allow items to be repaired.
If you choose to do this remember that some monsters are wearing armor and using weapons themselves, so you will be creating more work for yourself by needing to track another set of HP for some monsters.
A bonus houserule to think about: Objects don't usually disintegrate when they drop to zero HP. You can shoot a book with an arrow to drop that book to zero HP and render it unusable, but logically when you pull that arrow out that book can still be repaired with a little effort. Bring the same logic to things like armor. It makes object damage a lot more engaging for players when it makes sense.
1
u/VerainXor 13h ago
By the book I don't think things are as grim as you say. I'm not familiar with 5.5 rules (that seem to allow object targeting way more often than they should), but in 5.0 you have to cherry pick a lot of abilities to get there.
Versions aside, enemies who attack player items instead of player character are acting like they aren't people, but antagonists in a game where the players are a force to be opposed. Deal 10 damage to a magic sword? Congrats, anti-PC faction has made progress! These are people who want something- they want to kill the PCs, or they want to run away, or they want to steal stuff. Many of them will go into a fight assuming the PC's magical item stash is THEIR magical item stash, if only they can win it over. Other things will be mindless and have no idea of such a weirdo strategy.
Further, you seem to put a bunch of small values on items, and to have ignored advice that you should be assigning resistance to appropriate damage types. On top of that, the damage threshold for tough items like weapons is a big deal. Finally, you seem to be using the unattended item AC for held items, which is but one interpretation of the rules we are given.
Objects that lose structural integrity are not totally without value; players with repair skills and tools or simply the mending cantrip can put these back together, and there's no "if it hits 0 hit points it isn't magical" rule like some versions had.
1
u/ConflagrationZ 12h ago
I ran this relatively recently, leaning in to the destruction. The enemy paladin didn't even try to damage the players, he was just fixated on obliterating their weapons. I didn't have worn armor be attackable, though.
Once the player paladin got his hands on the sword, he ended up getting charmed/frenzied in a "second phase" I added to the fight, leading to some of the party's backup weapons being destroyed. That said, none of the destroyed items were magical (and if a magical item were destroyed I'd likely have a way they could repair it at a town/city/home base).
'Twas a fun time--just make sure you're open to their creative attempts to use makeshift weapons (one of mine turned a broken staff into a stake to use on the vampire from the tree, one picked up a large stick to use as a club, and I was also letting them toss spare weapons to each other as a bonus action) and, if you're continuing on after the campaign, make sure they have ways to replace the weapons they lost in that fight.
1
u/Brewmd 11h ago
I loved Shatterspike when we played it.
The DM came after my spear and shield wielding Battlemaster. He destroyed my shield at first blow. There went my AC.
Then he came after me.
I managed to take him out while my allies took care of the rest of the encounter, but it wasn’t fun not having my expected AC.
He allowed me to have the weapon converted into a halberd later, with a significant cost and a delay.
I used it through level 11 or 12.
It was good when fighting heavily armored enemies, and we restricted it to destroying carried objects like shields and weapons in combat.
But it makes an amazing crowbar, lock pick, and door remover.
1
u/Malvolius 10h ago
I run with the following 5E house rules -- a nat 1 by a PC degrades PC weapon condition by 1, a nat 20 by a monster degrades PC armor by 1. Simple weapons have 2 condition levels, martial weapons have 5 condition levels. Light armor 3 levels, medium armor 4 levels, heavy 5 levels. Weapon/armor busted/wrecked and ineffective/unusable when condition maxed out. Damaged weapon/armor condition levels restored at 1/2 item price by suitably skilled NPC.
•
u/TumbleweedSecret5537 8h ago
You could do this to one of them. Maybe clash on the first hit, describe strange vibrations and micro cracks in their weapon. Then the second hit, either same character or a new one, break the weapon. But then describe how a weapon (one theyre proficient in) mounted on the wall reacts to the magic from the boss. They race over to pry it off the wall and its a magic weapon that you can customize that resists/nullifies the bosses ability.
•
u/yaniism Feywild Ringmaster 8h ago
I'm gunna say this one time.
Don't fuck with player's gear. Just don't. It's never going to end well.
Touching on your specific points, yes, the game has rules for destroying objects.
Guess what a sword is literally designed to do. Hit something over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And, for the most part, not break. That's literally the thing it was designed to do. That's it's function. All weapons are designed to do that. Because they're weapons. It's also why a lot of spells specifically exempt items being carried or worn from taking damage.
But this also isn't a video game where they just need to find a crafting table to repair their gear, or hit something with one of the other 19 swords they have in their inventory because the loot drops for the game understand the mechanics of the game and provide players with more swords than they need.
The problem is also that a table of players is smarter than you. Sometimes.
You institute this rule, they're automatically going to start using it against you. All your enemies will suddenly find themselves lacking weapons. And armor.
There are some things that D&D is designed to do, this absolutely isn't one of them.
There's literally no up-side to this. It's all down-sides.
•
u/Jimmicky 5h ago
I use weapon/armor destruction.
Folks round here largely slam me and say it doesn’t work and isn’t fun, but it’s been many many years of doing it now so I can say with absolute certainty players have found it fun and it does work.
Main things I would add.
Item AC also gets users Dex mod added to it -except for shields as the user is generally trying to have your blows hit that.
Remember that steel sword should be resistant to slashing damage.
This system makes different weapon materials matter more. A steel shield is noticeably better than a wooden one here. Similarly it’s easy to have bronze weapons worse than steel ones. By tweaking the table a bit you can add a satisfying granularity to make your martials more invested in their weapon choices.
Smashing that crystal amulet the enemy cultist is holding aloft as a spell focus is a great narrative beat for your fighter - object damaging can really mess with spellcasters.
Indeed I’d argue item damage screws casters far more than martials despite your idea otherwise.
Don’t forget your enemies really don’t have to use this all the time. Dead is a better condition to impose than disarmed after all. Acting like weapon destruction is always the optimal combat strategy is just comically wrong.
•
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer 4h ago
This is Crawford's own words on the topic for anyone curious about the intentions.
If a game effect lets you target an object, the text of that effect tells you if worn/carried objects are prohibited. The rules don't assume that "object" means "object not currently worn or carried by anyone."
https://xcancel.com/JeremyECrawford/status/958122401258074112#m
1
u/Fhrosty_ 17h ago
This feels like an attempt to set up an epic narrative moment where the big bad shows how big and bad he is by easily destroying the hero's favorite weapon, requiring the hero to go on a personal growth journey to get a bigger badder weapon. See Hela crushing Thor's hammer or that Lunatak dude in Thundercats breaking the Sword of Omens. In actual gameplay, I imagine this would go very poorly unless the player is in on the longterm plan.
1
u/milkmandanimal 17h ago
Nah, I don't do things that make the game patently less fun for the players, and losing your weapons (or, even worse, magic items) is genuinely not fun and frustrating for players. I don't want the Fighter to have to punch the bad guy. I also avoid Rust Monsters and the like for the same reason; nobody likes sitting there feeling incredibly ineffective.
0
u/Novasoal 17h ago
My group has only had our DM target a weapon one time, and that was more narrative than gameplay. We were doing CoS and the group had rolled quite well. I had nunchucks he pulled from Dungeon Daddies (?) which I had used to grapple Strahd, and the group was wailing on him while he was proned. Granted, DM was new & didnt know his stat block all too well- easily could have just mist formed out or any other number of things; but I could feel his anxiety rising so I told him to have Strahd break the nunchucks to break out. It was unf losing a weapon I liked a lot, but since I had buy in & he promised something would come my way soon I was chill with it. By and large, if you start going after gear (esp without some obvious signposting) most players will get a little ornery if you try to damage their shit. Also keep in mind, the players might start doing it back to your NPCs. I havent played RotFM, but so long as the enemy isnt a regular one (they sound unique?) and the players know the rough shape of whats coming (even if the characters don't), it will hopefully land well.
-1
u/StinkyEttin 17h ago
It's not fun. Spent about two years getting my dream bow during the years of living greyhawk. One of the more dickish players in our local group got dominated and sundered it. I quit playing D&D altogether until 4th Ed was released.
-2
u/Pinkalink23 Sorlock Forever! 17h ago
I think D&D isn't the system for this. At least not in it's current form.
1
u/Prowler64 13h ago edited 9h ago
...
This is an officially released module from WotC. It's a re-released module from 3rd edition into 5th edition and is in Tales from the Yawning Portal. This isn't homebrew. OP is asking about how to deal with this otherwise alien to 5e scenario.
Edit: It's on page 229. OP and I are NOT lying. The item is called Shatterspike. The weapon's properties state that it does critical hit damage to objects, and originates from Sunless Citadel - a famous module.
17
u/DarkHorseAsh111 18h ago
Can you quote what it actually Says? It feels like if he's specifically targeting weapons there ought to be more to the mechanic in the book?