Unusual spell uses

[DinoKing13]

So I recently began running a 5th edition game, which so far has gone quite well. However, I ran into a problem at one point wherein a player wanted to use a spell for something that was a little different then it's intended use.

Specifically, my player, a human druid, wanted to use create or destroy water, a first level spell, to drain all the water out of an enemy goblin's body. I wasn't entirely sure what to do, as the while the idea sounded plausible, the spell was not designed as an attack, but rather as utility-ish power intended to destroy areas of water that could not fight back. Given that I could see situations like this re-occuring, I am wondering what I should do in the future.

Also, if this question or something similar has already been asked, I would greatly appreciate it if somebody could direct me to the page. Thanks for your help.

[Justin Sane]

Nope. Destroy Water requires an "open container", which the goblin (presumably) is not.

If you want to reward creativity, however, say the target takes 3d10 Necrotic damage if it fails a Constitution (or Wisdom) Saving Throw (duplicating Inflict Wounds).

[yutikohyla]

Mechanically, no it does not. However in most of my groups creativity is also welcome so I would allow it to do some sort of damage barring a save. It may not be damage to HP, but perhaps the Goblin simply begins to retreat and cannot attack due to dehydration.

[Ashrym]

You might decide the goblin is dehydrated and give a level of exhaustion as opposed to actual damage to reward creativity.

[Justin Sane]

You might decide the goblin is dehydrated and give a level of exhaustion as opposed to actual damage to reward creativity.Ooh, that's good. Especially because that's the effect of dehydration in 5e.

[DinoKing13]

This is all very useful and I will take it into account. I like the idea of using exhaustion levels, though need to look into them a little more before using them. Thanks for the advice.

[Celcey]

Truthfully, I would avoid giving the goblin any penalties, just because otherwise the player might try to use this tactic every single time.

[AstralFire]

I'm inclined to agree. It's also not actually all that clever (especially with the recurring theme of bloodbending in pop culture these days). If Create/Destroy Water can affect creatures because they are made of something-remotely-like-free-running-water, why can't Sacred Flame target specifically a dude's eyeball? His eyeball has no cover from you, and you're just starting a fire, why not start it on his eyes?

"Clever" uses of non-combat spells to deal damage seem to always get free passes, but "clever" uses of combat spells to do more damage or do non-combat things tend to be disallowed, especially in past editions. This is an inequity that should be discouraged.

[Bacchanalian]

Had a player preempt my Constitution check for approaching the week old corpse of an adult dragon that was rotting in the heat by using Prestidigitation to make her cloak smell like flowers. That one made me sad but proud because it was literally her first session of D&D ever.

[DDogwood]

I'm inclined to agree. It's also not actually all that clever (especially with the recurring theme of bloodbending in pop culture these days). If Create/Destroy Water can affect creatures because they are made of something-remotely-like-free-running-water, why can't Sacred Flame target specifically a dude's eyeball? His eyeball has no cover from you, and you're just starting a fire, why not start it on his eyes?

"Clever" uses of non-combat spells to deal damage seem to always get free passes, but "clever" uses of combat spells to do more damage or do non-combat things tend to be disallowed, especially in past editions. This is an inequity that should be discouraged.

In fairness, classic D&D specifically encouraged this - notice how the Light spell was, effectively, a blinding spell because it could be cast on an opponent's eyes. My understanding is that this was exactly because of a clever player asking if he could cast Light on an opponent's eyes.

in my experience, clever uses of combat spells to do non-combat things was MORE encouraged in past editions than the reverse, but both certainly happened.

The main downside to allowing clever spell uses is that it tends to make spellcasters even more powerful. So, if you allow this, you need to say yes to clever ideas that don't rely on spells.

[ReturnOfTheKing]

Speaking as a soon-to-be member of this group, I really want cleverness to be encouraged, especially given that I'm playing an inventor-ish person and especially especially after the long, combat-oriented nightmare our 4e campaign was. No offence.

[Aramis Rhett]

I like coupling spells for added effects. An illusory lich paired with ground covering fog or the illusion of rapidly decaying vegetation growing from the "liches" location, and a telepathy spell to scream portents of doom. Add prestidigitation to emanate an incredibly bad odor, throw some little visuals around, and some poor sod will need a change of Huggies.

[pwykersotz]

Speaking as a soon-to-be member of this group, I really want cleverness to be encouraged, especially given that I'm playing an inventor-ish person and especially especially after the long, combat-oriented nightmare our 4e campaign was. No offence.

Inventiveness is fantastic and should be encouraged. But...

1) Combat bonuses for said inventiveness should be kept closer to the vest than exploration or roleplay bonuses

2) It might be used against you sometimes

[Dizlag]

I've always been the type of DM to never say no to a player who is creative and will say, "yes you can do that, but it's not gonna kill him just give him exhaustion levels. If you want to burn 5 more 1st level slots to cast the spell on him over and over, then at level 6 exhaustion he will die". I like the idea of exhaustion levels for the destroy water spell and it is by no means too powerful or anything a DM should worry about being used on his baddies. The simple fact is, and should be pointed out to the players, that the baddies can then use it back on the players at some point.

By all means, let your players be creative with this system or any other roleplaying game for that matter and reward them with the creativity. I've been using the advantage/disadvantage mechanic for this kind of stuff. On the fly as I just read the original post, I was thinking to just give the goblin disadvantage on his next attack, then he'll recover the round after that and it still rewards the player for being creative.

Dizlag

[Mechaviking]

I cast banishment on a guardian naga that was guarding a portal to a demiplane, strutted inside and... Found a Guardian Naga inside a Demiplane, hilarity ensued(and violence).

[JAL_1138]

I dunno if this one works in 5e, but:

Flesh to Stone -> Stone to Mud -> Purify Water.

[JoeJ]

Nonstandard spell effects might be a good option to allow a player to spend inspiration on. Or, if you're using hero points, you could allow one to be used to create a one time spell variant or other Rule of Cool effect. Either way, that limits it to something for especially dramatic moments (as judged by the player) instead of letting it become the standard tactic.

[Easy_Lee]

Perhaps destroying the water just destroys the moisture open to the air. So the goblin's mouth, nose, ears, and eyes get really dry and the goblin is very uncomfortable. Give'em a penalty to charisma checks.