@JeremyECrawford When the rules for making an attack or casting a spell talk about targeting an object, is it implied that it's an unattended object, or it possible to target someone's armor/shield directly with an attack in an attempt to damage/break it?

— Armando Doval (@armando_doval) January 29, 2018

Is this balanced, in practice? When facing someone in Plate with a Shield (AC 21) mightn’t it trivialize the fight to target and destroy their armor (AC19, 10hp)? Negating worn armor for the low cost of one weapon attack seems incredibly powerful. You'll be happy to know that few things in the game do this.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 30, 2018

The base rules for damaging objects don’t specify unattended, so any character or monster can do it with a basic attack. Am I missing something? Those rules are entirely in the DM's hands. Using those rules, the DM is encouraged to rule that certain types of attacks/damage do nothing to certain objects. Those rules don't provide a foolproof way to wreck plate.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 30, 2018

I’m curious about the decision to require using half your movement to get up from prone. Seems odd if I have 30 it’s 15 if I have 300 it’s 150? How come a static number wasn’t used?Because we wanted you to use half your speed.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 29, 2018

@JeremyECrawford Aura of Hate: fiends and undead within 10 feet of the paladin gain a damage bonus. Does this apply only to fiends and undead friendly to the Oathbreaker, or would the damage bonus also apply to an Awakened Undead PC within ten feet of the enemy NPC Oathbreaker?

— Joe (@JLemmonhead) January 15, 2018

The Oathbreaker’s Aura of Hate makes no mention of the fiends and undead being the paladin’s allies. In other words, the aura benefits a fiend or an undead whether or not the creature is friendly toward the paladin. #DnD https://t.co/4Dqmhq8wpi

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 15, 2018

Mike gave you a useful house rule. The Oathbreaker isn't designed for player characters, as Aura of Hate demonstrates, so that house rule is a fine way to make it work.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 15, 2018

pic.twitter.com/XfuVHBQt5l

— Joe Manganiello (@JoeManganiello) January 15, 2018

@JeremyECrawford Can you please clarify something silly? You said that cantrips can't be cast using slots, but the rules seem to imply otherwise. Do you stand by this? Cantrips are spells and spell can be upcast so I don't see the issue. https://t.co/TewPQwJTvu

— Nathaniel Mosher (@RubiksMoose) January 5, 2018

The first sentence of the rule on cantrips says they don't use spell slots. The rule isn't kidding. #DnD https://t.co/JUzAGPqsQk

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 5, 2018

A spell must be cast with a spell slot for you to be able to cast it with a higher-level spell slot. This means you can't use a higher-level slot with a cantrip or a spell you cast from a magic item without a slot. #DnD https://t.co/PUFRFQGxBX

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 5, 2018

Think of them as level 0 spells. Can be cast infinite times and cannot be up-cast with slots.

— Jordan Astley (@JordanAstley90) January 5, 2018

Cantrips are, indeed, 0-level spells. #DnD https://t.co/GcD1lwtVIb

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 5, 2018

You're welcome!

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 5, 2018