I was reading a thread on rpg.stackexchange.com that talked about whether or not a Dragonborn's acid breath could dissolve a lock. There was some back and forth on the issue, but the most interesting point referenced the DMG pg. 246 & 247, which explained the rules for item AC and HP.
However, If a character wants to break something inanimate/immobile, I'm not sure if an AC serves best in this case. Also, I imagine that some things, like steel bars, would simply be too sturdy to damage with a weapon, especially one with the finesse quality. It would be better for a skill check, in my mind, which you can control and apply a difficulty. In the door-wrecking game, I think combat prowess is probably less useful. So in the case of a barbarian who wants to break open a treasure chest with a mythril lock using his maul or great axe, an Athletics check would be better than having him roll against an AC, which can be easily overcome with repeated effort.
I would suggest that heavy weapons (maybe bludgeoning vs metal) would confer advantage or a bonus to the check, and finesse weapons would grant disadvantage. That might reverse in some cases, such as with ropes or cloth items. I would scale the difficulty of the check with the strength/quality of the item (adamantine items might be 30, effectively making the check impossible for most scenarios at low levels).
I also like the fact that changing the 'to hit' roll into a skill check allows another use for the athletics skill, and it reduces the need for follow-on damage rolls, which simplifies the process overall.
I do agreed that using skill checks instead of to hit would probably be better. But most of this would really depend on the situation. You can easily end up having some really awkward and derpy moments in your game if you have one guy do four attack rolls in a row, while trying to break something. Meanwhile you and the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting for him to finally break it.
With that i believe that if there is no urgency or time constraint of some kind going on, you probably shouldn't have repeated skill checks or attack rolls in order to break something. For example: The fighter is trying to break a door down a reinforced door while the room is being flooded with poison gas? That's a tense situation. Which is cool.
Whereas if the fighter is trying to break down a reinforced door simply because it's in their way. That might be a slow and dull moment for the group just waiting for the fighter to finish off the doors HP so they can continue.
In such a situation it might make more sense to have the fighter take a skill check to break down the door, and it will always succeed, because. Really what's stopping it from working? and just have the skill check result in how long it will take, and if/or the fighters maul breaks while breaking the door (a critical fail could even mean it is not possible to break the door with a maul?)
These are just some thought I've had on the subject, but i haven't really had a lot of experience with it. I just do remember having a few derpy moments and wondered how to possibly avoid them.
In one of my games, the group needed to scale a 20 foot palisade wall, and the way they wanted to do that was using a 50-foot rope attached to a hook. They would throw the hook and get it caught on the top of the wall so they could use the rope to help them get advantage on climbing the wall. So i thought i would call for a attack roll since they were trying to do some precision throwing, and after the first fail the cleric asked me "So you want me to just roll until i hit? Not really item destruction but it kinda leans towards the same thing if you just keep rolling dice until something works. Which item destruction with AC and HP would be.
I do my rolls the same way that Veriat does, with amount of time being what the roll is for in less tense situations.
I think an interesting way to apply a check to the grappling hook situation would be to check how successful they are at making sure the it hooks something sturdy. In other words, if they roll poorly instead of the hook missing it might come undone with a party member half-way up. Especially if they are attempting to hook the edge of a wall, in many situations they wouldn't be able to see just how well they hooked it. Sure they could give it a few tugs to test it but who knows what will happen once you put a few hundred pounds of gear on the rope?
I also think AC doesn't always make the most sense for things like locks or steel bars. I think just give it more hp instead if the metal is higher quality. Or give it a property like resistance to slashing or even immunity to slashing. That way they either have to pick it or find a magical means to by-pass it.
In one of my games, the group needed to scale a 20 foot palisade wall, and the way they wanted to do that was using a 50-foot rope attached to a hook. They would throw the hook and get it caught on the top of the wall so they could use the rope to help them get advantage on climbing the wall. So i thought i would call for a attack roll since they were trying to do some precision throwing, and after the first fail the cleric asked me "So you want me to just roll until i hit? Not really item destruction but it kinda leans towards the same thing if you just keep rolling dice until something works. Which item destruction with AC and HP would be.
What do you guys think?
To be honest in a situation like that, I would make the player roll a d20 to make sure he got anything but a "1". Otherwise you can skip that completely and just allow them to make the throw.. UNLESS of course it was a time sensitive situation or its during combat, or maybe rolling to see if made a noise a guard could hear. If its just they need to do and there is no other factors and you want that slight chance something can go wrong, roll a d20, anything other then a 1, its successful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Host of the Pocket Mimic Podcast, a D&D 5e Show! Join us and listen in as we build a new world step by step! (http://Pocketmimic.com) DMs vs PCs! All DMs are evil | ENnie Award Winner | OSR style in a 5e world |1000+ character souls taken | 25+ yrs exp Remember to hit the thanks button, if you feel my info was useful, it helps me know I've provided helpful information and know I'm on the right track.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was reading a thread on rpg.stackexchange.com that talked about whether or not a Dragonborn's acid breath could dissolve a lock. There was some back and forth on the issue, but the most interesting point referenced the DMG pg. 246 & 247, which explained the rules for item AC and HP.
However, If a character wants to break something inanimate/immobile, I'm not sure if an AC serves best in this case. Also, I imagine that some things, like steel bars, would simply be too sturdy to damage with a weapon, especially one with the finesse quality. It would be better for a skill check, in my mind, which you can control and apply a difficulty. In the door-wrecking game, I think combat prowess is probably less useful. So in the case of a barbarian who wants to break open a treasure chest with a mythril lock using his maul or great axe, an Athletics check would be better than having him roll against an AC, which can be easily overcome with repeated effort.
I would suggest that heavy weapons (maybe bludgeoning vs metal) would confer advantage or a bonus to the check, and finesse weapons would grant disadvantage. That might reverse in some cases, such as with ropes or cloth items. I would scale the difficulty of the check with the strength/quality of the item (adamantine items might be 30, effectively making the check impossible for most scenarios at low levels).
I also like the fact that changing the 'to hit' roll into a skill check allows another use for the athletics skill, and it reduces the need for follow-on damage rolls, which simplifies the process overall.
Thoughts?
I do agreed that using skill checks instead of to hit would probably be better. But most of this would really depend on the situation. You can easily end up having some really awkward and derpy moments in your game if you have one guy do four attack rolls in a row, while trying to break something. Meanwhile you and the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting for him to finally break it.
With that i believe that if there is no urgency or time constraint of some kind going on, you probably shouldn't have repeated skill checks or attack rolls in order to break something. For example: The fighter is trying to break a door down a reinforced door while the room is being flooded with poison gas? That's a tense situation. Which is cool.
Whereas if the fighter is trying to break down a reinforced door simply because it's in their way. That might be a slow and dull moment for the group just waiting for the fighter to finish off the doors HP so they can continue.
In such a situation it might make more sense to have the fighter take a skill check to break down the door, and it will always succeed, because. Really what's stopping it from working? and just have the skill check result in how long it will take, and if/or the fighters maul breaks while breaking the door (a critical fail could even mean it is not possible to break the door with a maul?)
These are just some thought I've had on the subject, but i haven't really had a lot of experience with it. I just do remember having a few derpy moments and wondered how to possibly avoid them.
In one of my games, the group needed to scale a 20 foot palisade wall, and the way they wanted to do that was using a 50-foot rope attached to a hook. They would throw the hook and get it caught on the top of the wall so they could use the rope to help them get advantage on climbing the wall. So i thought i would call for a attack roll since they were trying to do some precision throwing, and after the first fail the cleric asked me "So you want me to just roll until i hit? Not really item destruction but it kinda leans towards the same thing if you just keep rolling dice until something works. Which item destruction with AC and HP would be.
What do you guys think?
Placeholder Snek
I do my rolls the same way that Veriat does, with amount of time being what the roll is for in less tense situations.
I think an interesting way to apply a check to the grappling hook situation would be to check how successful they are at making sure the it hooks something sturdy. In other words, if they roll poorly instead of the hook missing it might come undone with a party member half-way up. Especially if they are attempting to hook the edge of a wall, in many situations they wouldn't be able to see just how well they hooked it. Sure they could give it a few tugs to test it but who knows what will happen once you put a few hundred pounds of gear on the rope?
I also think AC doesn't always make the most sense for things like locks or steel bars. I think just give it more hp instead if the metal is higher quality. Or give it a property like resistance to slashing or even immunity to slashing. That way they either have to pick it or find a magical means to by-pass it.
Host of the Pocket Mimic Podcast, a D&D 5e Show! Join us and listen in as we build a new world step by step! (http://Pocketmimic.com)
DMs vs PCs! All DMs are evil | ENnie Award Winner | OSR style in a 5e world |1000+ character souls taken | 25+ yrs exp
Remember to hit the thanks button, if you feel my info was useful, it helps me know I've provided helpful information and know I'm on the right track.